<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_01_1855252</id>
	<title>Another Study Attacks Violent Video Games, Claims To Be "Conclusive"</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267434720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Killer Orca is one of many to tell us about a new study on the effects of violent video games on kids.  The latest meta-study that analyzed research from 130 different reports claims to have "<a href="http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2010/mar/vvgeffects">conclusively proven</a>" that violent video games make more aggressive, less caring kids.  <i>"The team used meta-analytic procedures &mdash; the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous, related literature -- to test the effects of violent video game play on the behaviors, thoughts, and feelings of the individuals, ranging from elementary school-aged children to college undergraduates. [...] Anderson says the new study may be his last meta-analysis on violent video games because of its definitive findings."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Killer Orca is one of many to tell us about a new study on the effects of violent video games on kids .
The latest meta-study that analyzed research from 130 different reports claims to have " conclusively proven " that violent video games make more aggressive , less caring kids .
" The team used meta-analytic procedures    the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous , related literature -- to test the effects of violent video game play on the behaviors , thoughts , and feelings of the individuals , ranging from elementary school-aged children to college undergraduates .
[ ... ] Anderson says the new study may be his last meta-analysis on violent video games because of its definitive findings .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Killer Orca is one of many to tell us about a new study on the effects of violent video games on kids.
The latest meta-study that analyzed research from 130 different reports claims to have "conclusively proven" that violent video games make more aggressive, less caring kids.
"The team used meta-analytic procedures — the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous, related literature -- to test the effects of violent video game play on the behaviors, thoughts, and feelings of the individuals, ranging from elementary school-aged children to college undergraduates.
[...] Anderson says the new study may be his last meta-analysis on violent video games because of its definitive findings.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322766</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267440840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, what I don't see is the direct relation to causality.  They show there's a strong connection between violent video games and violence.  But a connection doesn't imply causation.  Is there an underlying factor in there (Say, oh I don't know, poor parenting perhaps?) that actually causes the connection?  Statistics are funny in that given enough data, you can usually find what you're looking for, even if it's not really there.  Good science starts with a clean slate (Ok, we know violence is an affect, let's study violent and non-violent groups and try to see the common factors and differences) and look for an outcome.  Bad science starts with an outcome and looks to justify it based off of observation (That's not applicable to instances of verifying predicted outcomes based on an otherwise complete model)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , what I do n't see is the direct relation to causality .
They show there 's a strong connection between violent video games and violence .
But a connection does n't imply causation .
Is there an underlying factor in there ( Say , oh I do n't know , poor parenting perhaps ?
) that actually causes the connection ?
Statistics are funny in that given enough data , you can usually find what you 're looking for , even if it 's not really there .
Good science starts with a clean slate ( Ok , we know violence is an affect , let 's study violent and non-violent groups and try to see the common factors and differences ) and look for an outcome .
Bad science starts with an outcome and looks to justify it based off of observation ( That 's not applicable to instances of verifying predicted outcomes based on an otherwise complete model ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, what I don't see is the direct relation to causality.
They show there's a strong connection between violent video games and violence.
But a connection doesn't imply causation.
Is there an underlying factor in there (Say, oh I don't know, poor parenting perhaps?
) that actually causes the connection?
Statistics are funny in that given enough data, you can usually find what you're looking for, even if it's not really there.
Good science starts with a clean slate (Ok, we know violence is an affect, let's study violent and non-violent groups and try to see the common factors and differences) and look for an outcome.
Bad science starts with an outcome and looks to justify it based off of observation (That's not applicable to instances of verifying predicted outcomes based on an otherwise complete model)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323386</id>
	<title>Correlation does not implay causation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267443180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DUH! <a href="http://pipeline.corante.com/Lemongraph.jpg" title="corante.com" rel="nofollow">http://pipeline.corante.com/Lemongraph.jpg</a> [corante.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DUH !
http : //pipeline.corante.com/Lemongraph.jpg [ corante.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DUH!
http://pipeline.corante.com/Lemongraph.jpg [corante.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31326952</id>
	<title>Total Bunk!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267470600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That study is so much <i>Merde'</i> that whomever funded it should <b>DEMAND</b> their Money Back from those <i>"academic"</i> shysters!</p><p>I grew up playing with toys soldiers and had <i>wars</i> with my friends, and played with a toy replica of The Rifleman's Winchester Model 70 rifle, and had a set of Roy Rogers chrome revolvers that carried six rounds, and all these toys fired actual plastic <i>"bullets"</i>,  and my sister to this day hates me for it, but I digress <i>(I still have a couple of rounds in a box somewhere.)</i>. For xmas 1963, I got a <b>Battlewagon B-400 Battleship Deluxe</b>, 34" long, <i>Missiles</i>, <i>Rockets</i>, <i>Plane Launcher</i>, <i>Depth Charges</i>, and Crew. I had a plastic Thompson machine gun that when I pulled back on the bolt, made <i>"real"</i> staccato shooting sounds.</p><p>And with these toys, we were actually <b>acting out</b> <i>killing</i> one another rather than sitting passively <i>(relatively)</i> and killing each other. So how is it that myself and all my friends from those times are not more aggressive, less caring adults? That study is <b>Bunk</b>!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That study is so much Merde ' that whomever funded it should DEMAND their Money Back from those " academic " shysters ! I grew up playing with toys soldiers and had wars with my friends , and played with a toy replica of The Rifleman 's Winchester Model 70 rifle , and had a set of Roy Rogers chrome revolvers that carried six rounds , and all these toys fired actual plastic " bullets " , and my sister to this day hates me for it , but I digress ( I still have a couple of rounds in a box somewhere. ) .
For xmas 1963 , I got a Battlewagon B-400 Battleship Deluxe , 34 " long , Missiles , Rockets , Plane Launcher , Depth Charges , and Crew .
I had a plastic Thompson machine gun that when I pulled back on the bolt , made " real " staccato shooting sounds.And with these toys , we were actually acting out killing one another rather than sitting passively ( relatively ) and killing each other .
So how is it that myself and all my friends from those times are not more aggressive , less caring adults ?
That study is Bunk !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That study is so much Merde' that whomever funded it should DEMAND their Money Back from those "academic" shysters!I grew up playing with toys soldiers and had wars with my friends, and played with a toy replica of The Rifleman's Winchester Model 70 rifle, and had a set of Roy Rogers chrome revolvers that carried six rounds, and all these toys fired actual plastic "bullets",  and my sister to this day hates me for it, but I digress (I still have a couple of rounds in a box somewhere.).
For xmas 1963, I got a Battlewagon B-400 Battleship Deluxe, 34" long, Missiles, Rockets, Plane Launcher, Depth Charges, and Crew.
I had a plastic Thompson machine gun that when I pulled back on the bolt, made "real" staccato shooting sounds.And with these toys, we were actually acting out killing one another rather than sitting passively (relatively) and killing each other.
So how is it that myself and all my friends from those times are not more aggressive, less caring adults?
That study is Bunk!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325668</id>
	<title>Why this study is flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267457940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many stories of violent crime in which anti-gaming advocates like Jack Thompson insist video games were "a contributing factor".<br>I have yet to see one scrap of evidence that directly links ANY game to ANY kind of violent crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many stories of violent crime in which anti-gaming advocates like Jack Thompson insist video games were " a contributing factor " .I have yet to see one scrap of evidence that directly links ANY game to ANY kind of violent crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many stories of violent crime in which anti-gaming advocates like Jack Thompson insist video games were "a contributing factor".I have yet to see one scrap of evidence that directly links ANY game to ANY kind of violent crime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323372</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267443060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing opponents of the study have no agenda whatsoever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing opponents of the study have no agenda whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing opponents of the study have no agenda whatsoever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323756</id>
	<title>You think you can fight culture???  Right.</title>
	<author>Zoson</author>
	<datestamp>1267444920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just like trying to fight religion.  Religious intolerance breeds violence, just like social intolerance breeds violence.</p><p>The intolerance of the gaming culture is what wounds society.  Not the games or gaming culture itself.  When you oppress a persons' culture, you get violence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just like trying to fight religion .
Religious intolerance breeds violence , just like social intolerance breeds violence.The intolerance of the gaming culture is what wounds society .
Not the games or gaming culture itself .
When you oppress a persons ' culture , you get violence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just like trying to fight religion.
Religious intolerance breeds violence, just like social intolerance breeds violence.The intolerance of the gaming culture is what wounds society.
Not the games or gaming culture itself.
When you oppress a persons' culture, you get violence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323472</id>
	<title>Star Wars makes kids more violent</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1267443540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some friends of my kids recently got the LEGO Star Wars video game.  The day my kids got home, they started picking up everything that could be imagined as a sword and starting chasing each other around the house swinging away.  It could be something as small as an empty paper towel tube or a banana to a tennis racket, wood spoons or even an umbrella.</p><p>Let's just say I called up the parent and told her I didn't want my kids playing star wars games at their house, just like my kids aren't allowed "to play guns."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some friends of my kids recently got the LEGO Star Wars video game .
The day my kids got home , they started picking up everything that could be imagined as a sword and starting chasing each other around the house swinging away .
It could be something as small as an empty paper towel tube or a banana to a tennis racket , wood spoons or even an umbrella.Let 's just say I called up the parent and told her I did n't want my kids playing star wars games at their house , just like my kids are n't allowed " to play guns .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some friends of my kids recently got the LEGO Star Wars video game.
The day my kids got home, they started picking up everything that could be imagined as a sword and starting chasing each other around the house swinging away.
It could be something as small as an empty paper towel tube or a banana to a tennis racket, wood spoons or even an umbrella.Let's just say I called up the parent and told her I didn't want my kids playing star wars games at their house, just like my kids aren't allowed "to play guns.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322610</id>
	<title>Anderson and Bushman *again*?</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1267440180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How come the names of Anderson and Bushman come up so often in studies that find ill effects from playing video games? For whatever reason they seem to have quite a knack for finding exactly what they set out to look for. I understand that scientists do often manage to legitimately confirm their pet hypotheses, but why do these two manage to do so more often than other researchers who are working on the same question?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How come the names of Anderson and Bushman come up so often in studies that find ill effects from playing video games ?
For whatever reason they seem to have quite a knack for finding exactly what they set out to look for .
I understand that scientists do often manage to legitimately confirm their pet hypotheses , but why do these two manage to do so more often than other researchers who are working on the same question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come the names of Anderson and Bushman come up so often in studies that find ill effects from playing video games?
For whatever reason they seem to have quite a knack for finding exactly what they set out to look for.
I understand that scientists do often manage to legitimately confirm their pet hypotheses, but why do these two manage to do so more often than other researchers who are working on the same question?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325414</id>
	<title>Re:The D&amp;D effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267455600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but that was all true.  Mazes and Monsters drove Tom Hanks insane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but that was all true .
Mazes and Monsters drove Tom Hanks insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but that was all true.
Mazes and Monsters drove Tom Hanks insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31329468</id>
	<title>Burn the world...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1267543620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually its the exact opposite of what this study says.</p><p>Game actually protect people.</p><p>You see a leprechaun in my head tells me to "burn the world" and to generally go on a murderous rampage.</p><p>Video games keep me occupied where otherwise I would be off stalking the countryside or up to nefarious deeds.</p><p>Tuesdays are not a good day, at least for anyone that lives withing stabbing distance...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually its the exact opposite of what this study says.Game actually protect people.You see a leprechaun in my head tells me to " burn the world " and to generally go on a murderous rampage.Video games keep me occupied where otherwise I would be off stalking the countryside or up to nefarious deeds.Tuesdays are not a good day , at least for anyone that lives withing stabbing distance.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually its the exact opposite of what this study says.Game actually protect people.You see a leprechaun in my head tells me to "burn the world" and to generally go on a murderous rampage.Video games keep me occupied where otherwise I would be off stalking the countryside or up to nefarious deeds.Tuesdays are not a good day, at least for anyone that lives withing stabbing distance...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324026</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1267446360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, another slashdot article attacks another study contradicting the slashdot groupthink, claims to be more correct than the study.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , another slashdot article attacks another study contradicting the slashdot groupthink , claims to be more correct than the study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, another slashdot article attacks another study contradicting the slashdot groupthink, claims to be more correct than the study.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322306</id>
	<title>Video games don't make me violent...</title>
	<author>Kirin Fenrir</author>
	<datestamp>1267438980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...studies about video game violence make me violent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...studies about video game violence make me violent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...studies about video game violence make me violent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323842</id>
	<title>Re:We should keep an open mind about this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267445400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the thing though: the question itself is biased. It is not asking what affect (if any) do video games have, what are variables resulting from different games, or even a comparison against other types of games (like say chess).</p><p>The presumption taints any serious evaluation and makes the conclusions suspect.</p><p>Further, it has been a common theme in other studies to direct the results at those least able to effectively voice their dissent: children.</p><p>There is no rationalization as to why the effects would be more pronounced in chidren, or a comparison to adults (because every one knows damn well that a study suggesting adults curb their violent interests will be met with contempt).</p><p>From cornflakes, Ms. Jackson's boob, naughty music, and comic books; this is junk science at its finest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the thing though : the question itself is biased .
It is not asking what affect ( if any ) do video games have , what are variables resulting from different games , or even a comparison against other types of games ( like say chess ) .The presumption taints any serious evaluation and makes the conclusions suspect.Further , it has been a common theme in other studies to direct the results at those least able to effectively voice their dissent : children.There is no rationalization as to why the effects would be more pronounced in chidren , or a comparison to adults ( because every one knows damn well that a study suggesting adults curb their violent interests will be met with contempt ) .From cornflakes , Ms. Jackson 's boob , naughty music , and comic books ; this is junk science at its finest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the thing though: the question itself is biased.
It is not asking what affect (if any) do video games have, what are variables resulting from different games, or even a comparison against other types of games (like say chess).The presumption taints any serious evaluation and makes the conclusions suspect.Further, it has been a common theme in other studies to direct the results at those least able to effectively voice their dissent: children.There is no rationalization as to why the effects would be more pronounced in chidren, or a comparison to adults (because every one knows damn well that a study suggesting adults curb their violent interests will be met with contempt).From cornflakes, Ms. Jackson's boob, naughty music, and comic books; this is junk science at its finest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323164</id>
	<title>The Anti-Shakespeare brigade</title>
	<author>unixguy43</author>
	<datestamp>1267442220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK- lets take this logic and hit against something that is considered a "classic"</p><p>William Shakespeare deals with teen suicide in "Romeo and Juliet".</p><p>If we do a study that shows that more teens commit suicide after reading R&amp;J than before, should it come with one of the stupid warning labels they place on CD's and in front of every TV show?</p><p>I can just see Barnes and Noble with a security guard in front of the Shakespeare aisle with a big sign:  "Books in this aisle deal with adult subject matter and cannot be purchased by persons under the age of 17.  Purchasing of this material for the purpose of furnishing it to minors is strictly prohibited by law."</p><p>Stupid, huh?  Makes just as much sense though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK- lets take this logic and hit against something that is considered a " classic " William Shakespeare deals with teen suicide in " Romeo and Juliet " .If we do a study that shows that more teens commit suicide after reading R&amp;J than before , should it come with one of the stupid warning labels they place on CD 's and in front of every TV show ? I can just see Barnes and Noble with a security guard in front of the Shakespeare aisle with a big sign : " Books in this aisle deal with adult subject matter and can not be purchased by persons under the age of 17 .
Purchasing of this material for the purpose of furnishing it to minors is strictly prohibited by law .
" Stupid , huh ?
Makes just as much sense though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK- lets take this logic and hit against something that is considered a "classic"William Shakespeare deals with teen suicide in "Romeo and Juliet".If we do a study that shows that more teens commit suicide after reading R&amp;J than before, should it come with one of the stupid warning labels they place on CD's and in front of every TV show?I can just see Barnes and Noble with a security guard in front of the Shakespeare aisle with a big sign:  "Books in this aisle deal with adult subject matter and cannot be purchased by persons under the age of 17.
Purchasing of this material for the purpose of furnishing it to minors is strictly prohibited by law.
"Stupid, huh?
Makes just as much sense though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325026</id>
	<title>Re:Or maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267452360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are text messages more/less meaningless than any other form of communication?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are text messages more/less meaningless than any other form of communication ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are text messages more/less meaningless than any other form of communication?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323936</id>
	<title>Publish or Perish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267445880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another typical "Publish or Perish" bullcrap study.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another typical " Publish or Perish " bullcrap study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another typical "Publish or Perish" bullcrap study.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182</id>
	<title>"not huge effects"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA:</p><blockquote><div><p>"These are not huge effects -- not on the order of joining a gang vs. not joining a gang," said Anderson. "But these effects are also not trivial in size. It is one risk factor for future aggression and other sort of negative outcomes. And it's a risk factor that's easy for an individual parent to deal with -- at least, easier than changing most other known risk factors for aggression and violence, such as poverty or one's genetic structure."</p><p>The analysis found that violent video game effects are significant in both Eastern and Western cultures, in males and females, and in all age groups. Although there are good theoretical reasons to expect the long-term harmful effects to be higher in younger, pre-teen youths, there was only weak evidence of such age effects. </p></div>
</blockquote><p>How did they rule out the possibility that children who are prone to violence might also be prone to playing more violent video games?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " These are not huge effects -- not on the order of joining a gang vs. not joining a gang , " said Anderson .
" But these effects are also not trivial in size .
It is one risk factor for future aggression and other sort of negative outcomes .
And it 's a risk factor that 's easy for an individual parent to deal with -- at least , easier than changing most other known risk factors for aggression and violence , such as poverty or one 's genetic structure .
" The analysis found that violent video game effects are significant in both Eastern and Western cultures , in males and females , and in all age groups .
Although there are good theoretical reasons to expect the long-term harmful effects to be higher in younger , pre-teen youths , there was only weak evidence of such age effects .
How did they rule out the possibility that children who are prone to violence might also be prone to playing more violent video games ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:"These are not huge effects -- not on the order of joining a gang vs. not joining a gang," said Anderson.
"But these effects are also not trivial in size.
It is one risk factor for future aggression and other sort of negative outcomes.
And it's a risk factor that's easy for an individual parent to deal with -- at least, easier than changing most other known risk factors for aggression and violence, such as poverty or one's genetic structure.
"The analysis found that violent video game effects are significant in both Eastern and Western cultures, in males and females, and in all age groups.
Although there are good theoretical reasons to expect the long-term harmful effects to be higher in younger, pre-teen youths, there was only weak evidence of such age effects.
How did they rule out the possibility that children who are prone to violence might also be prone to playing more violent video games?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322406</id>
	<title>Violent crime descrese after first video game</title>
	<author>Minupla</author>
	<datestamp>1267439340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oddly enough violent crime has been decreasing since 1992, and is now at 1960 levels.  Ergo another possible conclusion: Video games decrease overall societal violence level.</p><p>Consider that the first generation of videogame kids became old enough to start committing violent acts readily in the early 90s.</p><p>Source:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime\_in\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime\_in\_the\_United\_States</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Note to parents: this also puts the lie to "we must keep our kids inside all the time, since it's a scary world out there".</p><p>Yes, I'm a parent, and yes, I'm thinking of my children!</p><p>Min</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough violent crime has been decreasing since 1992 , and is now at 1960 levels .
Ergo another possible conclusion : Video games decrease overall societal violence level.Consider that the first generation of videogame kids became old enough to start committing violent acts readily in the early 90s.Source : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime \ _in \ _the \ _United \ _States [ wikipedia.org ] Note to parents : this also puts the lie to " we must keep our kids inside all the time , since it 's a scary world out there " .Yes , I 'm a parent , and yes , I 'm thinking of my children ! Min</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough violent crime has been decreasing since 1992, and is now at 1960 levels.
Ergo another possible conclusion: Video games decrease overall societal violence level.Consider that the first generation of videogame kids became old enough to start committing violent acts readily in the early 90s.Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime\_in\_the\_United\_States [wikipedia.org]Note to parents: this also puts the lie to "we must keep our kids inside all the time, since it's a scary world out there".Yes, I'm a parent, and yes, I'm thinking of my children!Min</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322228</id>
	<title>I'm dubious</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267438800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>he says a new study he led, analyzing 130 research reports on more than 130,000 subjects worldwide</i></p><p>It (TFA is actually a link to the school that did the study) doesn't take into account that many if not most of the studies he was studying were horribly flawed and designed to give the answer the researcher wanted (in short, not real science). Few  studies I've seen on the subject were the least bit reputable.</p><p>However, at the end is a bit of hope -- he calls for parents, not governments, to police the children</p><blockquote><div><p>"From a public policy standpoint, it's time to get off the question of, 'Are there real and serious effects?' That's been answered and answered repeatedly," Anderson said. "It's now time to move on to a more constructive question like, '<b>How do we make it easier for parents</b> -- within the limits of culture, society and law -- to provide a healthier childhood for their kids?'"</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>he says a new study he led , analyzing 130 research reports on more than 130,000 subjects worldwideIt ( TFA is actually a link to the school that did the study ) does n't take into account that many if not most of the studies he was studying were horribly flawed and designed to give the answer the researcher wanted ( in short , not real science ) .
Few studies I 've seen on the subject were the least bit reputable.However , at the end is a bit of hope -- he calls for parents , not governments , to police the children " From a public policy standpoint , it 's time to get off the question of , 'Are there real and serious effects ?
' That 's been answered and answered repeatedly , " Anderson said .
" It 's now time to move on to a more constructive question like , 'How do we make it easier for parents -- within the limits of culture , society and law -- to provide a healthier childhood for their kids ?
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he says a new study he led, analyzing 130 research reports on more than 130,000 subjects worldwideIt (TFA is actually a link to the school that did the study) doesn't take into account that many if not most of the studies he was studying were horribly flawed and designed to give the answer the researcher wanted (in short, not real science).
Few  studies I've seen on the subject were the least bit reputable.However, at the end is a bit of hope -- he calls for parents, not governments, to police the children"From a public policy standpoint, it's time to get off the question of, 'Are there real and serious effects?
' That's been answered and answered repeatedly," Anderson said.
"It's now time to move on to a more constructive question like, 'How do we make it easier for parents -- within the limits of culture, society and law -- to provide a healthier childhood for their kids?
'"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323174</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1267442220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, psychological studies are almost always ridiculed here, so it's not just that we tend to be gamers, and therefore hostile to articles that make blanket statements about gamers. Psych is a fuzzy branch of study, and to hard core empiricists, there are a lot of things wrong with even their most basic assumptions.</p><p>Add to that the fact that it's a "meta" study, which collects data from 130 odd studies with different methodologies, and you start to slide into "wanking" territory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , psychological studies are almost always ridiculed here , so it 's not just that we tend to be gamers , and therefore hostile to articles that make blanket statements about gamers .
Psych is a fuzzy branch of study , and to hard core empiricists , there are a lot of things wrong with even their most basic assumptions.Add to that the fact that it 's a " meta " study , which collects data from 130 odd studies with different methodologies , and you start to slide into " wanking " territory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, psychological studies are almost always ridiculed here, so it's not just that we tend to be gamers, and therefore hostile to articles that make blanket statements about gamers.
Psych is a fuzzy branch of study, and to hard core empiricists, there are a lot of things wrong with even their most basic assumptions.Add to that the fact that it's a "meta" study, which collects data from 130 odd studies with different methodologies, and you start to slide into "wanking" territory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323104</id>
	<title>Re:So does living in New York</title>
	<author>spamuell</author>
	<datestamp>1267441920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know what else makes people indifferent and uncaring... living in New York city.  Nobody can ignore a bum on the street nearly as well.  Should we ban living there too?</p></div><p>This has been modded funny but raises an important point. Perhaps playing violent video games does incline people towards aggressive behaviour (although that seems to have been far from proven). Even if it does, <i>that's ok</i>, or at least it might be.

The article makes the same point:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>[violent video games are] a risk factor that's easy for an individual parent to deal with -- at least, easier than changing most other known risk factors for aggression and violence, such as poverty or one's genetic structure.</p></div><p>We naturally shudder at the thought of legislating according to these other factors that might contribute to aggressive behaviour, such as preventing adults in poverty from having children, or terminating foetuses with a certain gene.

It is not enough to say that violent video games increase the probability of violent outcomes. We also need to test this against the much more serious criterion of the effect being considerable enough to warrant legislation. When that is "conclusively proven", let me know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what else makes people indifferent and uncaring... living in New York city .
Nobody can ignore a bum on the street nearly as well .
Should we ban living there too ? This has been modded funny but raises an important point .
Perhaps playing violent video games does incline people towards aggressive behaviour ( although that seems to have been far from proven ) .
Even if it does , that 's ok , or at least it might be .
The article makes the same point : [ violent video games are ] a risk factor that 's easy for an individual parent to deal with -- at least , easier than changing most other known risk factors for aggression and violence , such as poverty or one 's genetic structure.We naturally shudder at the thought of legislating according to these other factors that might contribute to aggressive behaviour , such as preventing adults in poverty from having children , or terminating foetuses with a certain gene .
It is not enough to say that violent video games increase the probability of violent outcomes .
We also need to test this against the much more serious criterion of the effect being considerable enough to warrant legislation .
When that is " conclusively proven " , let me know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what else makes people indifferent and uncaring... living in New York city.
Nobody can ignore a bum on the street nearly as well.
Should we ban living there too?This has been modded funny but raises an important point.
Perhaps playing violent video games does incline people towards aggressive behaviour (although that seems to have been far from proven).
Even if it does, that's ok, or at least it might be.
The article makes the same point:[violent video games are] a risk factor that's easy for an individual parent to deal with -- at least, easier than changing most other known risk factors for aggression and violence, such as poverty or one's genetic structure.We naturally shudder at the thought of legislating according to these other factors that might contribute to aggressive behaviour, such as preventing adults in poverty from having children, or terminating foetuses with a certain gene.
It is not enough to say that violent video games increase the probability of violent outcomes.
We also need to test this against the much more serious criterion of the effect being considerable enough to warrant legislation.
When that is "conclusively proven", let me know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322540</id>
	<title>We should keep an open mind about this.</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1267439940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For people like me who take science very seriously, I find these results disappointing. I imagine that many people here do as well. Let's remember, though, that just because we don't like the results does not make them wrong. I was really hoping that the universe would not end in a boring heat death, but I'm not about to attack cosmologists because the results of their research have dashed my hopes. </p><p>We have to examine the data very carefully, trying to look for other explanations for the correlations that were allegedly discovered. If becomes an established conclusion in the field that video games weakly cause violent and antisocial behavior, we might still decide that we don't need to do anything to regulate them beyond "M" labeling. This research result, even if confirmed, doesn't mean that the prudes won and that the state will be prying Crisis from some fat kid's cold dead fingers. We have many choices in how to react to this. But let's not get on our high-horse and yell about how this research must be tainted because we don't like the result. Fundamentalists with no respect for science do that, and we should meet a higher standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For people like me who take science very seriously , I find these results disappointing .
I imagine that many people here do as well .
Let 's remember , though , that just because we do n't like the results does not make them wrong .
I was really hoping that the universe would not end in a boring heat death , but I 'm not about to attack cosmologists because the results of their research have dashed my hopes .
We have to examine the data very carefully , trying to look for other explanations for the correlations that were allegedly discovered .
If becomes an established conclusion in the field that video games weakly cause violent and antisocial behavior , we might still decide that we do n't need to do anything to regulate them beyond " M " labeling .
This research result , even if confirmed , does n't mean that the prudes won and that the state will be prying Crisis from some fat kid 's cold dead fingers .
We have many choices in how to react to this .
But let 's not get on our high-horse and yell about how this research must be tainted because we do n't like the result .
Fundamentalists with no respect for science do that , and we should meet a higher standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For people like me who take science very seriously, I find these results disappointing.
I imagine that many people here do as well.
Let's remember, though, that just because we don't like the results does not make them wrong.
I was really hoping that the universe would not end in a boring heat death, but I'm not about to attack cosmologists because the results of their research have dashed my hopes.
We have to examine the data very carefully, trying to look for other explanations for the correlations that were allegedly discovered.
If becomes an established conclusion in the field that video games weakly cause violent and antisocial behavior, we might still decide that we don't need to do anything to regulate them beyond "M" labeling.
This research result, even if confirmed, doesn't mean that the prudes won and that the state will be prying Crisis from some fat kid's cold dead fingers.
We have many choices in how to react to this.
But let's not get on our high-horse and yell about how this research must be tainted because we don't like the result.
Fundamentalists with no respect for science do that, and we should meet a higher standard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325046</id>
	<title>Re:"not huge effects"</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1267452600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How did they rule out the possibility that children who are prone to violence might also be prone to playing more violent video games?</p></div><p>Because lots and lots of things in psychology work by reinforcement.  It might be that you play golf because you are good at it; but you probably became good at it by playing golf.  The simplest assumption in the psychology of habits and tendencies is not "A causes B" or "B causes A", but both.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How did they rule out the possibility that children who are prone to violence might also be prone to playing more violent video games ? Because lots and lots of things in psychology work by reinforcement .
It might be that you play golf because you are good at it ; but you probably became good at it by playing golf .
The simplest assumption in the psychology of habits and tendencies is not " A causes B " or " B causes A " , but both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did they rule out the possibility that children who are prone to violence might also be prone to playing more violent video games?Because lots and lots of things in psychology work by reinforcement.
It might be that you play golf because you are good at it; but you probably became good at it by playing golf.
The simplest assumption in the psychology of habits and tendencies is not "A causes B" or "B causes A", but both.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325602</id>
	<title>Doesnt make sense</title>
	<author>smd75</author>
	<datestamp>1267457460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about ALL the outliers (ie 90\% of slashdot)?<br>While growing up, I had videogames to play all the time. The only thing we weren't allowed to have was Mortal Kombat. I think it just wasn't appropriate for young kids because it was gory. We were allowed to play Street Fighter though, which wasnt graphic. From there I moved into Halflife, and Quake III, and Unreal Tournament and into Counter-Strike. Aggression has never been a problem for me, or all the kids I played these game with. I guess you could take some of our sick and twisted games as aggression. Sting Pong, Swords, Submission (two players grab arms, a belt is tied around their arms, no cheap shots, but what ever else it takes to get the other to submit) Night Tag... I dont think it was aggression, I think it was just a bunch of kids with a lot of time on their hands and a high tolerance for pain.<br>Aside from our games, i think I turned out pretty well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about ALL the outliers ( ie 90 \ % of slashdot ) ? While growing up , I had videogames to play all the time .
The only thing we were n't allowed to have was Mortal Kombat .
I think it just was n't appropriate for young kids because it was gory .
We were allowed to play Street Fighter though , which wasnt graphic .
From there I moved into Halflife , and Quake III , and Unreal Tournament and into Counter-Strike .
Aggression has never been a problem for me , or all the kids I played these game with .
I guess you could take some of our sick and twisted games as aggression .
Sting Pong , Swords , Submission ( two players grab arms , a belt is tied around their arms , no cheap shots , but what ever else it takes to get the other to submit ) Night Tag... I dont think it was aggression , I think it was just a bunch of kids with a lot of time on their hands and a high tolerance for pain.Aside from our games , i think I turned out pretty well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about ALL the outliers (ie 90\% of slashdot)?While growing up, I had videogames to play all the time.
The only thing we weren't allowed to have was Mortal Kombat.
I think it just wasn't appropriate for young kids because it was gory.
We were allowed to play Street Fighter though, which wasnt graphic.
From there I moved into Halflife, and Quake III, and Unreal Tournament and into Counter-Strike.
Aggression has never been a problem for me, or all the kids I played these game with.
I guess you could take some of our sick and twisted games as aggression.
Sting Pong, Swords, Submission (two players grab arms, a belt is tied around their arms, no cheap shots, but what ever else it takes to get the other to submit) Night Tag... I dont think it was aggression, I think it was just a bunch of kids with a lot of time on their hands and a high tolerance for pain.Aside from our games, i think I turned out pretty well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327486</id>
	<title>really?</title>
	<author>shnull</author>
	<datestamp>1267522320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd always thought it was the stressing times, high pressure on these kids and unreasonable expectations combined with the lack of real attention from their parents which gets substituted by virtual education in schools and such that leads these kids to be less caring. I've also thought of teenagers as generally not giving a flying fuck about the world (if i remember correctly, i used to be one myself). Seems like these hippies are really turning into todays nazis. I'm sure the kids will thank them for it later, what with the aging population and all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... be careful who you opress dear hippies, they might have to change your diapers someday<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd always thought it was the stressing times , high pressure on these kids and unreasonable expectations combined with the lack of real attention from their parents which gets substituted by virtual education in schools and such that leads these kids to be less caring .
I 've also thought of teenagers as generally not giving a flying fuck about the world ( if i remember correctly , i used to be one myself ) .
Seems like these hippies are really turning into todays nazis .
I 'm sure the kids will thank them for it later , what with the aging population and all ... be careful who you opress dear hippies , they might have to change your diapers someday .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd always thought it was the stressing times, high pressure on these kids and unreasonable expectations combined with the lack of real attention from their parents which gets substituted by virtual education in schools and such that leads these kids to be less caring.
I've also thought of teenagers as generally not giving a flying fuck about the world (if i remember correctly, i used to be one myself).
Seems like these hippies are really turning into todays nazis.
I'm sure the kids will thank them for it later, what with the aging population and all ... be careful who you opress dear hippies, they might have to change your diapers someday ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323526</id>
	<title>Re:I'll shoot anyone in the face who says that I'm</title>
	<author>flynt</author>
	<datestamp>1267443780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now this could actually turn violent!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now this could actually turn violent !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now this could actually turn violent!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238</id>
	<title>Or maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>An attention seeking/instant gratification/short attention span culture is generating less caring, more violent children because their communication is self-centered, widely dispersed and largely meaningless between their 7000 text messages a month and their garish myspace pages with 10000 friends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An attention seeking/instant gratification/short attention span culture is generating less caring , more violent children because their communication is self-centered , widely dispersed and largely meaningless between their 7000 text messages a month and their garish myspace pages with 10000 friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An attention seeking/instant gratification/short attention span culture is generating less caring, more violent children because their communication is self-centered, widely dispersed and largely meaningless between their 7000 text messages a month and their garish myspace pages with 10000 friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323718</id>
	<title>Re:So does living in New York</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1267444740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know it's a joke, but in fairness, it's not that New Yorkers are uncaring.
</p><p>It's more like... you have to learn to ignore *everyone*.  It's not that we learn to ignore the few homeless people we encounter; it's that we learn to ignore our millions of neighbors.  The homeless are just lumped into the group of "the millions of people in this city that I don't have time to think about right now."
</p><p>New Yorkers are actually pretty nice and helpful and look out for each other.  The funniest thing is, I said something like that to someone and they said, "No way.  I went to New York and was hanging around in Times Square, and everyone there was horribly rude and nasty."
</p><p>I laughed pretty hard at that.  New Yorkers don't spend time in Times Square.  Those horrible, nasty, rude people you run into at all the New York tourist traps?  Those are other tourists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it 's a joke , but in fairness , it 's not that New Yorkers are uncaring .
It 's more like... you have to learn to ignore * everyone * .
It 's not that we learn to ignore the few homeless people we encounter ; it 's that we learn to ignore our millions of neighbors .
The homeless are just lumped into the group of " the millions of people in this city that I do n't have time to think about right now .
" New Yorkers are actually pretty nice and helpful and look out for each other .
The funniest thing is , I said something like that to someone and they said , " No way .
I went to New York and was hanging around in Times Square , and everyone there was horribly rude and nasty .
" I laughed pretty hard at that .
New Yorkers do n't spend time in Times Square .
Those horrible , nasty , rude people you run into at all the New York tourist traps ?
Those are other tourists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it's a joke, but in fairness, it's not that New Yorkers are uncaring.
It's more like... you have to learn to ignore *everyone*.
It's not that we learn to ignore the few homeless people we encounter; it's that we learn to ignore our millions of neighbors.
The homeless are just lumped into the group of "the millions of people in this city that I don't have time to think about right now.
"
New Yorkers are actually pretty nice and helpful and look out for each other.
The funniest thing is, I said something like that to someone and they said, "No way.
I went to New York and was hanging around in Times Square, and everyone there was horribly rude and nasty.
"
I laughed pretty hard at that.
New Yorkers don't spend time in Times Square.
Those horrible, nasty, rude people you run into at all the New York tourist traps?
Those are other tourists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325914</id>
	<title>A raw nerve.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267459980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like something about this story touches a raw nerve.  Does everything need a "study" to prove something to you?</p><p>Our minds are like our bodies, what we feed them affects them.</p><p>Galatians 5:19-21: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are..., enmities, strife,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..., fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these. As to these things I am forewarning YOU, the same way as I did forewarn YOU, that those who practice such things will not inherit God&rsquo;s kingdom."</p><p>Better to feed on something from the wisdom of Jehovah, Almighty God himself.  I feel strongly that this is something that will help a person make a wise decision for themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like something about this story touches a raw nerve .
Does everything need a " study " to prove something to you ? Our minds are like our bodies , what we feed them affects them.Galatians 5 : 19-21 : " Now the works of the flesh are manifest , and they are... , enmities , strife , ... , fits of anger , contentions , divisions , sects , envies , drunken bouts , revelries , and things like these .
As to these things I am forewarning YOU , the same way as I did forewarn YOU , that those who practice such things will not inherit God    s kingdom .
" Better to feed on something from the wisdom of Jehovah , Almighty God himself .
I feel strongly that this is something that will help a person make a wise decision for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like something about this story touches a raw nerve.
Does everything need a "study" to prove something to you?Our minds are like our bodies, what we feed them affects them.Galatians 5:19-21: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are..., enmities, strife, ..., fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these.
As to these things I am forewarning YOU, the same way as I did forewarn YOU, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom.
"Better to feed on something from the wisdom of Jehovah, Almighty God himself.
I feel strongly that this is something that will help a person make a wise decision for themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31326602</id>
	<title>Re:"not huge effects"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267466880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They probably didn't. But we can't have people like you clouding the issue with silly things like facts!</p><p>I've been gaming since Quake and Doom, I collect guns and have a CCW permit, sometimes I get drunk and I used to use recreational drugs (lots of them) so I'm a pretty good candidate for being a "mass murderer" yet I've never shot anyone; not even accidentally.</p><p>Clearly this anecdotal evidence proves they are wrong LOL! The dept. listing on this was right, this is a "subjective-research-is-now-conclusive" situation(and supposedly quantitative/qualitative as well).</p><p>Sorry for posting anonymously, but I really didn't feel like setting up an account at midnight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably did n't .
But we ca n't have people like you clouding the issue with silly things like facts ! I 've been gaming since Quake and Doom , I collect guns and have a CCW permit , sometimes I get drunk and I used to use recreational drugs ( lots of them ) so I 'm a pretty good candidate for being a " mass murderer " yet I 've never shot anyone ; not even accidentally.Clearly this anecdotal evidence proves they are wrong LOL !
The dept .
listing on this was right , this is a " subjective-research-is-now-conclusive " situation ( and supposedly quantitative/qualitative as well ) .Sorry for posting anonymously , but I really did n't feel like setting up an account at midnight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably didn't.
But we can't have people like you clouding the issue with silly things like facts!I've been gaming since Quake and Doom, I collect guns and have a CCW permit, sometimes I get drunk and I used to use recreational drugs (lots of them) so I'm a pretty good candidate for being a "mass murderer" yet I've never shot anyone; not even accidentally.Clearly this anecdotal evidence proves they are wrong LOL!
The dept.
listing on this was right, this is a "subjective-research-is-now-conclusive" situation(and supposedly quantitative/qualitative as well).Sorry for posting anonymously, but I really didn't feel like setting up an account at midnight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324662</id>
	<title>Re:We should keep an open mind about this.</title>
	<author>ndykman</author>
	<datestamp>1267449780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that I feel the backgrounds of many here don't get social science research and tend to over estimate what the conclusions of these studies are. Certainly, my science requirements for my CS degree were physics and chemistry. It wasn't until my postdoc that I was exposed to research design in this area.</p><p>Things like aggression and anti-social behaviors are difficult to operationalize, but there are reasonable measures. Sure, these measures are never as good as those available to hard sciences and it weakens the conclusions, but too many are quick to dismiss all studies as flawed without understanding what makes good research design in social science and what doesn't (hint, it isn't as easy as it looks).</p><p>Overall, this does seem to support that there is a weak effect on VVG on aggressive behaviors and anti-social tendencies. Why is the idea that younger children may be negatively impacted by content that is not meant for them such a hard thing to accept here? Just because some would seek to use these studies as tools for wider censorship doesn't invalidate the studies. And noted, it is a call for parents and society to have a discussion. In the end, controlling what children are exposed is a role of society as a whole. The internet doesn't make this magically go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that I feel the backgrounds of many here do n't get social science research and tend to over estimate what the conclusions of these studies are .
Certainly , my science requirements for my CS degree were physics and chemistry .
It was n't until my postdoc that I was exposed to research design in this area.Things like aggression and anti-social behaviors are difficult to operationalize , but there are reasonable measures .
Sure , these measures are never as good as those available to hard sciences and it weakens the conclusions , but too many are quick to dismiss all studies as flawed without understanding what makes good research design in social science and what does n't ( hint , it is n't as easy as it looks ) .Overall , this does seem to support that there is a weak effect on VVG on aggressive behaviors and anti-social tendencies .
Why is the idea that younger children may be negatively impacted by content that is not meant for them such a hard thing to accept here ?
Just because some would seek to use these studies as tools for wider censorship does n't invalidate the studies .
And noted , it is a call for parents and society to have a discussion .
In the end , controlling what children are exposed is a role of society as a whole .
The internet does n't make this magically go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that I feel the backgrounds of many here don't get social science research and tend to over estimate what the conclusions of these studies are.
Certainly, my science requirements for my CS degree were physics and chemistry.
It wasn't until my postdoc that I was exposed to research design in this area.Things like aggression and anti-social behaviors are difficult to operationalize, but there are reasonable measures.
Sure, these measures are never as good as those available to hard sciences and it weakens the conclusions, but too many are quick to dismiss all studies as flawed without understanding what makes good research design in social science and what doesn't (hint, it isn't as easy as it looks).Overall, this does seem to support that there is a weak effect on VVG on aggressive behaviors and anti-social tendencies.
Why is the idea that younger children may be negatively impacted by content that is not meant for them such a hard thing to accept here?
Just because some would seek to use these studies as tools for wider censorship doesn't invalidate the studies.
And noted, it is a call for parents and society to have a discussion.
In the end, controlling what children are exposed is a role of society as a whole.
The internet doesn't make this magically go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148</id>
	<title>As always...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As always, whenever this topic comes up, here are my thoughts on it:</p><p><a href="http://livingwithanerd.com/violence-in-videogames/" title="livingwithanerd.com" rel="nofollow">http://livingwithanerd.com/violence-in-videogames/</a> [livingwithanerd.com]</p><p>Excerpt:</p><p>You have to allow the little monster to come out every now and then and release its frustrations. If you don't, you risk becoming a quivering mass of nervous and dangerous flesh. What better place to do this than in a simulated environment with simulated violence where the only things harmed are your eyes for staring at the screen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As always , whenever this topic comes up , here are my thoughts on it : http : //livingwithanerd.com/violence-in-videogames/ [ livingwithanerd.com ] Excerpt : You have to allow the little monster to come out every now and then and release its frustrations .
If you do n't , you risk becoming a quivering mass of nervous and dangerous flesh .
What better place to do this than in a simulated environment with simulated violence where the only things harmed are your eyes for staring at the screen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As always, whenever this topic comes up, here are my thoughts on it:http://livingwithanerd.com/violence-in-videogames/ [livingwithanerd.com]Excerpt:You have to allow the little monster to come out every now and then and release its frustrations.
If you don't, you risk becoming a quivering mass of nervous and dangerous flesh.
What better place to do this than in a simulated environment with simulated violence where the only things harmed are your eyes for staring at the screen?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322338</id>
	<title>Versus other risk factors</title>
	<author>Saishuuheiki</author>
	<datestamp>1267439100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article claims it's a risk factor, right?</p><p>I'd like to know how it compares to other 'risk factors' such as parents who drink, parents who smoke, or parents who are psychologists.</p><p>I move that we must first issue a ban on people who drink from having children...tricky to enforce in that many children are a result of excessive drinking</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article claims it 's a risk factor , right ? I 'd like to know how it compares to other 'risk factors ' such as parents who drink , parents who smoke , or parents who are psychologists.I move that we must first issue a ban on people who drink from having children...tricky to enforce in that many children are a result of excessive drinking</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article claims it's a risk factor, right?I'd like to know how it compares to other 'risk factors' such as parents who drink, parents who smoke, or parents who are psychologists.I move that we must first issue a ban on people who drink from having children...tricky to enforce in that many children are a result of excessive drinking</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323536</id>
	<title>Proves Conclusively?</title>
	<author>TeachingMachines</author>
	<datestamp>1267443780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No self-respecting behavioral scientist would say that they have proven something conclusively with their research.  It's just not how research works, and we don't start out with the assumptions that we can "prove" anything.  The data support one hypothesis, but the way that this is stated is that the researchers have failed to reject the alternative hypothesis: video games produce [violent] behavior.  The null hypothesis was rejected (video games have no effect on [violent] behavior.</p><p>In the article, the researchers say, "And the effects are that exposure to violent video games increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior in both short-term and long-term contexts. Such exposure also increases aggressive thinking and aggressive affect, and decreases prosocial behavior."</p><p>It's correlational data from a metanalytic study, but it is quite possible that the metanalytic study covers several true experiments.  In any case, we should probably state that the evidence is mounting for causal link between violent video games and violent behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No self-respecting behavioral scientist would say that they have proven something conclusively with their research .
It 's just not how research works , and we do n't start out with the assumptions that we can " prove " anything .
The data support one hypothesis , but the way that this is stated is that the researchers have failed to reject the alternative hypothesis : video games produce [ violent ] behavior .
The null hypothesis was rejected ( video games have no effect on [ violent ] behavior.In the article , the researchers say , " And the effects are that exposure to violent video games increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior in both short-term and long-term contexts .
Such exposure also increases aggressive thinking and aggressive affect , and decreases prosocial behavior .
" It 's correlational data from a metanalytic study , but it is quite possible that the metanalytic study covers several true experiments .
In any case , we should probably state that the evidence is mounting for causal link between violent video games and violent behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No self-respecting behavioral scientist would say that they have proven something conclusively with their research.
It's just not how research works, and we don't start out with the assumptions that we can "prove" anything.
The data support one hypothesis, but the way that this is stated is that the researchers have failed to reject the alternative hypothesis: video games produce [violent] behavior.
The null hypothesis was rejected (video games have no effect on [violent] behavior.In the article, the researchers say, "And the effects are that exposure to violent video games increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior in both short-term and long-term contexts.
Such exposure also increases aggressive thinking and aggressive affect, and decreases prosocial behavior.
"It's correlational data from a metanalytic study, but it is quite possible that the metanalytic study covers several true experiments.
In any case, we should probably state that the evidence is mounting for causal link between violent video games and violent behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323298</id>
	<title>So in other words...</title>
	<author>Skidborg</author>
	<datestamp>1267442700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kids of parents who are clueless enough to buy these games for their kids are more likely to be aggressive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kids of parents who are clueless enough to buy these games for their kids are more likely to be aggressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kids of parents who are clueless enough to buy these games for their kids are more likely to be aggressive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325756</id>
	<title>Re:We should keep an open mind about this.</title>
	<author>porcupine8</author>
	<datestamp>1267458480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank goodness someone here is sane. No, I don't like that the guy is calling for this to have policy implications either, but I'm not going to condemn the entire study for that.
<br> <br>
Pulling out old saws like "correlation doesn't imply causation" doesn't even work here - his meta-analysis includes studies with a variety of methodologies, some of which are designed to piece apart true causation from mere correlation. Nor can you claim that he's only looking at certain types of people (chances are, with 130 studies there's quite a range), or not controlling for other variables (again, 130 studies - probably everything and anything you can imagine has been controlled for in at least one of them). Anyone who wants to attack this guy needs to read the actual paper and make rational decisions based on the actual soundness of his methodology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank goodness someone here is sane .
No , I do n't like that the guy is calling for this to have policy implications either , but I 'm not going to condemn the entire study for that .
Pulling out old saws like " correlation does n't imply causation " does n't even work here - his meta-analysis includes studies with a variety of methodologies , some of which are designed to piece apart true causation from mere correlation .
Nor can you claim that he 's only looking at certain types of people ( chances are , with 130 studies there 's quite a range ) , or not controlling for other variables ( again , 130 studies - probably everything and anything you can imagine has been controlled for in at least one of them ) .
Anyone who wants to attack this guy needs to read the actual paper and make rational decisions based on the actual soundness of his methodology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank goodness someone here is sane.
No, I don't like that the guy is calling for this to have policy implications either, but I'm not going to condemn the entire study for that.
Pulling out old saws like "correlation doesn't imply causation" doesn't even work here - his meta-analysis includes studies with a variety of methodologies, some of which are designed to piece apart true causation from mere correlation.
Nor can you claim that he's only looking at certain types of people (chances are, with 130 studies there's quite a range), or not controlling for other variables (again, 130 studies - probably everything and anything you can imagine has been controlled for in at least one of them).
Anyone who wants to attack this guy needs to read the actual paper and make rational decisions based on the actual soundness of his methodology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31326670</id>
	<title>Chicken Or Egg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267467420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of these studies control out whether the games make people violent or whether already violent people are attracted to them.</p><p>It's a no-brainer that already violent people might want to play violent games. What is less obvious is whether a non-violent person is turned violent playing the games. I tend to get bored with a game as the violence rises and am consequently not attracted to violent games.</p><p>I suspect most non-violent people are the same and the reality is violence apparently arising from violent games is violence that would have happened with some other trigger, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of these studies control out whether the games make people violent or whether already violent people are attracted to them.It 's a no-brainer that already violent people might want to play violent games .
What is less obvious is whether a non-violent person is turned violent playing the games .
I tend to get bored with a game as the violence rises and am consequently not attracted to violent games.I suspect most non-violent people are the same and the reality is violence apparently arising from violent games is violence that would have happened with some other trigger , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of these studies control out whether the games make people violent or whether already violent people are attracted to them.It's a no-brainer that already violent people might want to play violent games.
What is less obvious is whether a non-violent person is turned violent playing the games.
I tend to get bored with a game as the violence rises and am consequently not attracted to violent games.I suspect most non-violent people are the same and the reality is violence apparently arising from violent games is violence that would have happened with some other trigger, anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322730</id>
	<title>Re:As always...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267440720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how all of these studies overlook the fact that so many parents use video games, like television, as a baby-sitter. Kids who's parents neglect them and allow them to spend all their time alone are bound to end up mal-adjusted. The fact that the kids choose to play violent video games is just a product of the situation and not the root cause. But of course<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's never popular to release a study saying "bad parents raise violent kids"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so much easier to have a scapegoat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how all of these studies overlook the fact that so many parents use video games , like television , as a baby-sitter .
Kids who 's parents neglect them and allow them to spend all their time alone are bound to end up mal-adjusted .
The fact that the kids choose to play violent video games is just a product of the situation and not the root cause .
But of course ... it 's never popular to release a study saying " bad parents raise violent kids " ... so much easier to have a scapegoat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how all of these studies overlook the fact that so many parents use video games, like television, as a baby-sitter.
Kids who's parents neglect them and allow them to spend all their time alone are bound to end up mal-adjusted.
The fact that the kids choose to play violent video games is just a product of the situation and not the root cause.
But of course ... it's never popular to release a study saying "bad parents raise violent kids" ... so much easier to have a scapegoat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323692</id>
	<title>Meta-Analysis - Beginning of the end for science?</title>
	<author>Confuse Ed</author>
	<datestamp>1267444560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this the beginning of what Asimov predicted in his Foundation series : <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Foundation\_series\_characters#Lord\_Dorwin" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Foundation\_series\_characters#Lord\_Dorwin</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>from the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The team used meta-analytic procedures -- the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous, related literature -- to test the effects of violent video game play on the behaviors,</p></div><p>* I accept that the occasional overview / review of the current state of the literature has its place, but attempting to draw conclusions in this manner is treading a dangerous path fraught with possibilities of inadvertant bias (through cherry-picking of \_which\_ previous literature to include) and statistical noise amplification by recycling a limited set of original measurements (ie. if the results of this 'research' are considered in future meta-analysis in addition to the original publications) : see for example <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal\_scandal/" title="theregister.co.uk">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal\_scandal/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the beginning of what Asimov predicted in his Foundation series : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _Foundation \ _series \ _characters # Lord \ _Dorwin [ wikipedia.org ] from the article : The team used meta-analytic procedures -- the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous , related literature -- to test the effects of violent video game play on the behaviors , * I accept that the occasional overview / review of the current state of the literature has its place , but attempting to draw conclusions in this manner is treading a dangerous path fraught with possibilities of inadvertant bias ( through cherry-picking of \ _which \ _ previous literature to include ) and statistical noise amplification by recycling a limited set of original measurements ( ie .
if the results of this 'research ' are considered in future meta-analysis in addition to the original publications ) : see for example http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal \ _scandal/ [ theregister.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the beginning of what Asimov predicted in his Foundation series : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Foundation\_series\_characters#Lord\_Dorwin [wikipedia.org]from the article:The team used meta-analytic procedures -- the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous, related literature -- to test the effects of violent video game play on the behaviors,* I accept that the occasional overview / review of the current state of the literature has its place, but attempting to draw conclusions in this manner is treading a dangerous path fraught with possibilities of inadvertant bias (through cherry-picking of \_which\_ previous literature to include) and statistical noise amplification by recycling a limited set of original measurements (ie.
if the results of this 'research' are considered in future meta-analysis in addition to the original publications) : see for example http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal\_scandal/ [theregister.co.uk]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31328404</id>
	<title>Re:As always...</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1267535460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Conclusive report:
<p> An outlet for non destructive violence makes kids non violent in real life. News at 11

</p><p> Now there's a TV blurb you're never going to see because no one would tune in at 11</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conclusive report : An outlet for non destructive violence makes kids non violent in real life .
News at 11 Now there 's a TV blurb you 're never going to see because no one would tune in at 11</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conclusive report:
 An outlet for non destructive violence makes kids non violent in real life.
News at 11

 Now there's a TV blurb you're never going to see because no one would tune in at 11</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322740</id>
	<title>Re:Or maybe</title>
	<author>Amouth</author>
	<datestamp>1267440720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fully agree that instant gratification is more the culprit for the quick shift in society than anything else.  If you look at what just about everything is designed to do now days.. it's just sad..</p><p>between that and the everything is disposable attitude people have - it is just really sad</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fully agree that instant gratification is more the culprit for the quick shift in society than anything else .
If you look at what just about everything is designed to do now days.. it 's just sad..between that and the everything is disposable attitude people have - it is just really sad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fully agree that instant gratification is more the culprit for the quick shift in society than anything else.
If you look at what just about everything is designed to do now days.. it's just sad..between that and the everything is disposable attitude people have - it is just really sad</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323478</id>
	<title>Re:I'm dubious</title>
	<author>KeithIrwin</author>
	<datestamp>1267443540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, just because the underlying studies are terrible doesn't mean that you can't produce good research out of it.  You just have to do a tranching process.  You bundle together the best parts of all of the different studies into the top level tranch which is then rated AAA and sold to high end news sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, etc which have a low risk tolerance.  The second level tranch contains the best parts which aren't in the AAA tranch.  This will probably still be rated A and can be sold to news organizations which are willing to take on a little more risk to get a little more sensationalism.  So local papers, NBC Nightly News, CNN, places like that.  Now the third tranch has a few good parts from studies in it, but also has a lot of crap.  It'll probably be rated C or D and can only be sold to the very bottom of the barrel news organizations who care far more for sensationalism than accuracy: New York Post, British Tabloids, MSNBC, Fox News, local TV news channels.  The fourth and final tranch has all of the remaining flaws from a variety of studies.  This one the authors keep for themselves.</p><p>So there you go, the perfect research derivative.  What could go wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , just because the underlying studies are terrible does n't mean that you ca n't produce good research out of it .
You just have to do a tranching process .
You bundle together the best parts of all of the different studies into the top level tranch which is then rated AAA and sold to high end news sources like the New York Times , Washington Post , BBC , etc which have a low risk tolerance .
The second level tranch contains the best parts which are n't in the AAA tranch .
This will probably still be rated A and can be sold to news organizations which are willing to take on a little more risk to get a little more sensationalism .
So local papers , NBC Nightly News , CNN , places like that .
Now the third tranch has a few good parts from studies in it , but also has a lot of crap .
It 'll probably be rated C or D and can only be sold to the very bottom of the barrel news organizations who care far more for sensationalism than accuracy : New York Post , British Tabloids , MSNBC , Fox News , local TV news channels .
The fourth and final tranch has all of the remaining flaws from a variety of studies .
This one the authors keep for themselves.So there you go , the perfect research derivative .
What could go wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, just because the underlying studies are terrible doesn't mean that you can't produce good research out of it.
You just have to do a tranching process.
You bundle together the best parts of all of the different studies into the top level tranch which is then rated AAA and sold to high end news sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, etc which have a low risk tolerance.
The second level tranch contains the best parts which aren't in the AAA tranch.
This will probably still be rated A and can be sold to news organizations which are willing to take on a little more risk to get a little more sensationalism.
So local papers, NBC Nightly News, CNN, places like that.
Now the third tranch has a few good parts from studies in it, but also has a lot of crap.
It'll probably be rated C or D and can only be sold to the very bottom of the barrel news organizations who care far more for sensationalism than accuracy: New York Post, British Tabloids, MSNBC, Fox News, local TV news channels.
The fourth and final tranch has all of the remaining flaws from a variety of studies.
This one the authors keep for themselves.So there you go, the perfect research derivative.
What could go wrong?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322582</id>
	<title>Is the Actual Study Posted Somewhere?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267440120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; 130 research reports on more than 130,000 subjects worldwide</p><p>OK, tell me how you can *conclusively* make this kind of determination from surveys.</p><p>Maybe the more violent kids are drawn to video games (which skews the result to his "conclusion" that kids who play games are more violent.)</p><p>If you want to know this *conclusively* you need a random sample of adolescents which you assign to two groups.  One group can't play video games at all, and the other group must play video games.</p><p>Evidently our Psychology Prof is not a scientist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; 130 research reports on more than 130,000 subjects worldwideOK , tell me how you can * conclusively * make this kind of determination from surveys.Maybe the more violent kids are drawn to video games ( which skews the result to his " conclusion " that kids who play games are more violent .
) If you want to know this * conclusively * you need a random sample of adolescents which you assign to two groups .
One group ca n't play video games at all , and the other group must play video games.Evidently our Psychology Prof is not a scientist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; 130 research reports on more than 130,000 subjects worldwideOK, tell me how you can *conclusively* make this kind of determination from surveys.Maybe the more violent kids are drawn to video games (which skews the result to his "conclusion" that kids who play games are more violent.
)If you want to know this *conclusively* you need a random sample of adolescents which you assign to two groups.
One group can't play video games at all, and the other group must play video games.Evidently our Psychology Prof is not a scientist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324442</id>
	<title>Re:As always...</title>
	<author>ravenshrike</author>
	<datestamp>1267448700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And,of course, was quite probably doing steroids for the vast majority of that time. Along with who knows what other strength enhancers. Unless you can prove that all the boxers who don't take drugs exhibit the same behaviors your argument isn't worth the electrons it's composed of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And,of course , was quite probably doing steroids for the vast majority of that time .
Along with who knows what other strength enhancers .
Unless you can prove that all the boxers who do n't take drugs exhibit the same behaviors your argument is n't worth the electrons it 's composed of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And,of course, was quite probably doing steroids for the vast majority of that time.
Along with who knows what other strength enhancers.
Unless you can prove that all the boxers who don't take drugs exhibit the same behaviors your argument isn't worth the electrons it's composed of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327240</id>
	<title>"Conclusive" critique of "conclusive" study</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267561980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can never understand how the same people who put their fingers in their ears and hum when they see one of these studies can accuse those doing the studies of being negligent. Pot, meet Kettle.</p><p>No, violent video games don't make violent people outta everyone.</p><p>No, video games do not exist in some vacuous existence where they have zero effect on an individual whatsoever.</p><p>Yes, there is a reason the military has used video games that gamers don't like to know: it helps soldiers get past the "human factor" (a name they use internally to reference the fact that most people won't kill someone else.. video games have been used to get past this).</p><p>Yes, there is merit in saying it can relieve aggression, give gamers something else to think about other than their troubles. Often what older scientists who study games don't "get" is that the violence often isn't attractive to gamers because they are sick puppies, it's because the violence is grotesque and over-the-top-to-the-point-of-being-funny, and thus fun. All they see is the gore, and don't consider that if it was them playing, they might be more amused (esp. if they were 30 years younger).</p><p>Yet both sides of this argument love ignoring studies, ignoring anecdotes, ignoring evidence, and ignoring each other because they just don't like to lose, and can't conceive of a way of looking at these games where everyone wins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can never understand how the same people who put their fingers in their ears and hum when they see one of these studies can accuse those doing the studies of being negligent .
Pot , meet Kettle.No , violent video games do n't make violent people outta everyone.No , video games do not exist in some vacuous existence where they have zero effect on an individual whatsoever.Yes , there is a reason the military has used video games that gamers do n't like to know : it helps soldiers get past the " human factor " ( a name they use internally to reference the fact that most people wo n't kill someone else.. video games have been used to get past this ) .Yes , there is merit in saying it can relieve aggression , give gamers something else to think about other than their troubles .
Often what older scientists who study games do n't " get " is that the violence often is n't attractive to gamers because they are sick puppies , it 's because the violence is grotesque and over-the-top-to-the-point-of-being-funny , and thus fun .
All they see is the gore , and do n't consider that if it was them playing , they might be more amused ( esp .
if they were 30 years younger ) .Yet both sides of this argument love ignoring studies , ignoring anecdotes , ignoring evidence , and ignoring each other because they just do n't like to lose , and ca n't conceive of a way of looking at these games where everyone wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can never understand how the same people who put their fingers in their ears and hum when they see one of these studies can accuse those doing the studies of being negligent.
Pot, meet Kettle.No, violent video games don't make violent people outta everyone.No, video games do not exist in some vacuous existence where they have zero effect on an individual whatsoever.Yes, there is a reason the military has used video games that gamers don't like to know: it helps soldiers get past the "human factor" (a name they use internally to reference the fact that most people won't kill someone else.. video games have been used to get past this).Yes, there is merit in saying it can relieve aggression, give gamers something else to think about other than their troubles.
Often what older scientists who study games don't "get" is that the violence often isn't attractive to gamers because they are sick puppies, it's because the violence is grotesque and over-the-top-to-the-point-of-being-funny, and thus fun.
All they see is the gore, and don't consider that if it was them playing, they might be more amused (esp.
if they were 30 years younger).Yet both sides of this argument love ignoring studies, ignoring anecdotes, ignoring evidence, and ignoring each other because they just don't like to lose, and can't conceive of a way of looking at these games where everyone wins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322512</id>
	<title>Re:"not huge effects"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267439820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with that - having some anecdotes of my own I sure can't tell whether "annoying little asinine snits play video games a lot" or "playing video games a lot makes kids into annoying little asinine snits". One or the other is true for the sample size I've personally seen, but prove which one it is? How?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with that - having some anecdotes of my own I sure ca n't tell whether " annoying little asinine snits play video games a lot " or " playing video games a lot makes kids into annoying little asinine snits " .
One or the other is true for the sample size I 've personally seen , but prove which one it is ?
How ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with that - having some anecdotes of my own I sure can't tell whether "annoying little asinine snits play video games a lot" or "playing video games a lot makes kids into annoying little asinine snits".
One or the other is true for the sample size I've personally seen, but prove which one it is?
How?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322242</id>
	<title>To defeat terrorists  take their X-Boxes</title>
	<author>ZuchinniOne</author>
	<datestamp>1267438800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because obviously the most violent places in the world, like parts of Africa, Afganistan / Pakistan and the Colombian drug forests have far too many violent video games.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and where are the studies saying that Hockey, Football, etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... cause violent behavior?</p><p>I guess we should ban that too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because obviously the most violent places in the world , like parts of Africa , Afganistan / Pakistan and the Colombian drug forests have far too many violent video games .
... and where are the studies saying that Hockey , Football , etc ... cause violent behavior ? I guess we should ban that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because obviously the most violent places in the world, like parts of Africa, Afganistan / Pakistan and the Colombian drug forests have far too many violent video games.
... and where are the studies saying that Hockey, Football, etc ... cause violent behavior?I guess we should ban that too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322752</id>
	<title>Re:As always...</title>
	<author>quietwalker</author>
	<datestamp>1267440780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a common-sense view that is unfortunately, pretty much wrong.</p><p>Indulgence in a form of problem behavior in either a real or simulated fashion does not remove the compulsion to perform that behavior again.  In fact, if there's a reward of some sort, it makes sense that it would strengthen it.</p><p>A good example would be Mike Tyson.  Here is a man who literally used a punching bag for hours a day, fought others constantly in a purely physical realm.  According to the theory that you can 'get it out of your system,' he ought to have spent is entire free time performing volunteer work at old person's homes, holding their hands while listening to their stories and making them feel important.</p><p>Instead, he beats up Robin Givens, rapes an 18 year old, beats up the paparazzi, and when he gets out of jail and goes back to his intense training schedule, he bites an opponent's ear.</p><p>Violence is only a symptom.  The cause doesn't change.  The best you can hope for is physical exhaustion and a short term inability to carry out those desires.</p><p>So, 'getting it out of your system' is a terrible reason to advocate video game violence.</p><p>A better one would be, "Any reasonable person should be aware of the difference between real and simulated violence, and adults should take the time to explain this difference to children.  The alternative would be to treat every man, woman, and child as being incapable of making this decision."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a common-sense view that is unfortunately , pretty much wrong.Indulgence in a form of problem behavior in either a real or simulated fashion does not remove the compulsion to perform that behavior again .
In fact , if there 's a reward of some sort , it makes sense that it would strengthen it.A good example would be Mike Tyson .
Here is a man who literally used a punching bag for hours a day , fought others constantly in a purely physical realm .
According to the theory that you can 'get it out of your system, ' he ought to have spent is entire free time performing volunteer work at old person 's homes , holding their hands while listening to their stories and making them feel important.Instead , he beats up Robin Givens , rapes an 18 year old , beats up the paparazzi , and when he gets out of jail and goes back to his intense training schedule , he bites an opponent 's ear.Violence is only a symptom .
The cause does n't change .
The best you can hope for is physical exhaustion and a short term inability to carry out those desires.So , 'getting it out of your system ' is a terrible reason to advocate video game violence.A better one would be , " Any reasonable person should be aware of the difference between real and simulated violence , and adults should take the time to explain this difference to children .
The alternative would be to treat every man , woman , and child as being incapable of making this decision .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a common-sense view that is unfortunately, pretty much wrong.Indulgence in a form of problem behavior in either a real or simulated fashion does not remove the compulsion to perform that behavior again.
In fact, if there's a reward of some sort, it makes sense that it would strengthen it.A good example would be Mike Tyson.
Here is a man who literally used a punching bag for hours a day, fought others constantly in a purely physical realm.
According to the theory that you can 'get it out of your system,' he ought to have spent is entire free time performing volunteer work at old person's homes, holding their hands while listening to their stories and making them feel important.Instead, he beats up Robin Givens, rapes an 18 year old, beats up the paparazzi, and when he gets out of jail and goes back to his intense training schedule, he bites an opponent's ear.Violence is only a symptom.
The cause doesn't change.
The best you can hope for is physical exhaustion and a short term inability to carry out those desires.So, 'getting it out of your system' is a terrible reason to advocate video game violence.A better one would be, "Any reasonable person should be aware of the difference between real and simulated violence, and adults should take the time to explain this difference to children.
The alternative would be to treat every man, woman, and child as being incapable of making this decision.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322522</id>
	<title>Obligatory XKCD reference: Nachos</title>
	<author>handy\_vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1267439820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"BOOM!  HEADSHOT."</p><p> <a href="http://xkcd.com/654/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/654/</a> [xkcd.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" BOOM !
HEADSHOT. " http : //xkcd.com/654/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"BOOM!
HEADSHOT." http://xkcd.com/654/ [xkcd.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327110</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267472580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are three equally plausible hypotheses for such correlation. Let me enumerate them:</p><p>-Video games cause violent behavior ("a causes b")<br>-Violent people need to vent and thus play more video games ("b causes a")<br>-There's some external factor (like parenting) that affects both ("c causes both a and b")</p><p>Now it's your time to shine: explain how the second and third possibilities are ruled out in these studies. The page you linked doesn't answer that (there's just some generic handwaving about some phrase being overrated).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are three equally plausible hypotheses for such correlation .
Let me enumerate them : -Video games cause violent behavior ( " a causes b " ) -Violent people need to vent and thus play more video games ( " b causes a " ) -There 's some external factor ( like parenting ) that affects both ( " c causes both a and b " ) Now it 's your time to shine : explain how the second and third possibilities are ruled out in these studies .
The page you linked does n't answer that ( there 's just some generic handwaving about some phrase being overrated ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are three equally plausible hypotheses for such correlation.
Let me enumerate them:-Video games cause violent behavior ("a causes b")-Violent people need to vent and thus play more video games ("b causes a")-There's some external factor (like parenting) that affects both ("c causes both a and b")Now it's your time to shine: explain how the second and third possibilities are ruled out in these studies.
The page you linked doesn't answer that (there's just some generic handwaving about some phrase being overrated).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323540</id>
	<title>Pacman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267443780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I suppose Pacman is the root cause of Obesity too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I suppose Pacman is the root cause of Obesity too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I suppose Pacman is the root cause of Obesity too!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322176</id>
	<title>Uh... no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>Nothing other than a double-blind study with random selection of test subjects can truly be considered "conclusive", IMHO.  All studies that I've seen thus far are hopelessly thwarted by selection bias.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing other than a double-blind study with random selection of test subjects can truly be considered " conclusive " , IMHO .
All studies that I 've seen thus far are hopelessly thwarted by selection bias .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Nothing other than a double-blind study with random selection of test subjects can truly be considered "conclusive", IMHO.
All studies that I've seen thus far are hopelessly thwarted by selection bias.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31326800</id>
	<title>Re:Good?</title>
	<author>Black Gold Alchemist</author>
	<datestamp>1267468680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>squandered resources, environmental destruction, and increased global competition</p></div><p>

Same thing that eastern cultures do. It's a good thing. Resources are unlimited, so who cares if they are squandered? The environment wants to kill us, so I'm glad it's being destroyed (soon we won't need it). Competition makes people better. This is not a joke.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>squandered resources , environmental destruction , and increased global competition Same thing that eastern cultures do .
It 's a good thing .
Resources are unlimited , so who cares if they are squandered ?
The environment wants to kill us , so I 'm glad it 's being destroyed ( soon we wo n't need it ) .
Competition makes people better .
This is not a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>squandered resources, environmental destruction, and increased global competition

Same thing that eastern cultures do.
It's a good thing.
Resources are unlimited, so who cares if they are squandered?
The environment wants to kill us, so I'm glad it's being destroyed (soon we won't need it).
Competition makes people better.
This is not a joke.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322546</id>
	<title>My evidence is much more conclusive</title>
	<author>sunking2</author>
	<datestamp>1267439940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The last few mass murderers I've seen have all been bunny hopping from place to place throughout their entire massacre. Where else do you pick up such skills?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last few mass murderers I 've seen have all been bunny hopping from place to place throughout their entire massacre .
Where else do you pick up such skills ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last few mass murderers I've seen have all been bunny hopping from place to place throughout their entire massacre.
Where else do you pick up such skills?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324240</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1267447320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He says "conclusively proven" = agenda.</p><p>Move on here, nothing to see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He says " conclusively proven " = agenda.Move on here , nothing to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He says "conclusively proven" = agenda.Move on here, nothing to see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323426</id>
	<title>Re:Or maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267443300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're making exactly the same mistake that critics of movies/comics/rock and roll/TV/video games/etc. have made. "New thing X is strange and unusual to me. The kids that enjoy it are acting in ways that are strange and unusual to me. Clearly thing X is making our kids strange and unusual."</p><p>i.e. Sorry, but you're old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're making exactly the same mistake that critics of movies/comics/rock and roll/TV/video games/etc .
have made .
" New thing X is strange and unusual to me .
The kids that enjoy it are acting in ways that are strange and unusual to me .
Clearly thing X is making our kids strange and unusual. " i.e .
Sorry , but you 're old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're making exactly the same mistake that critics of movies/comics/rock and roll/TV/video games/etc.
have made.
"New thing X is strange and unusual to me.
The kids that enjoy it are acting in ways that are strange and unusual to me.
Clearly thing X is making our kids strange and unusual."i.e.
Sorry, but you're old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327950</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1267529220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are very real limitations to psychology/sociology studies. Example:
<br> <br>
I like to beat on things. I like to kill ponies and kittens when on the farm. Theres nothing i enjoy more that a bit of brother beating. Why i think i will play a game of a)Chess, b)The sims, c) modern warfare 2.
<br> <br>
Now real studies have *massive* problems with being totally statistically bogus. I should know as I sometimes use these studies to show how stats can be so bogus (also some medical studies). Small numbers aside there are 2 principal causes of bias. The first is not accounting for natural bias. Violent games are played by guys mainly. Violent crime is committed by guys mainly. Already i can get a correlation that is *not* casual. The next is miss application of tests. In particular trying lots of different tests with different parameters (aka chi2 with different binnings) until you have a result that is "significant". This is a hidden multiple tests problem. The "reviewer"  or reader has no idea that 7 different tests where tried before getting a significant result.
<br> <br>
There are other massive problems with this sort of thing. Meta studies have the problem of non independence if not done very carefully (same dataset many publications). Then the small numbers problem makes false positives while having power hard to avoid. How is violence measured? if its from arrests with violent crime, then this a very rare thing (compared to average) and makes proper inference very difficult if not totally arbitrary. We haven't even got to publication bias.
<br> <br>
So his quote:<p><div class="quote"><p>Video Game Violence, and media violence in general, are more than proven to increase aggression.</p></div><p>Is really misleading at best. Read the studies. They don't say this, because you can't. The data doesn't support it. And what does "aggression" mean? Or what defines a violent game or TV show? And in this meta study, what was done to "normalize" the different measures of violence and aggression. There is a reason why a lot of people say psychology/sociology is not a real science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are very real limitations to psychology/sociology studies .
Example : I like to beat on things .
I like to kill ponies and kittens when on the farm .
Theres nothing i enjoy more that a bit of brother beating .
Why i think i will play a game of a ) Chess , b ) The sims , c ) modern warfare 2 .
Now real studies have * massive * problems with being totally statistically bogus .
I should know as I sometimes use these studies to show how stats can be so bogus ( also some medical studies ) .
Small numbers aside there are 2 principal causes of bias .
The first is not accounting for natural bias .
Violent games are played by guys mainly .
Violent crime is committed by guys mainly .
Already i can get a correlation that is * not * casual .
The next is miss application of tests .
In particular trying lots of different tests with different parameters ( aka chi2 with different binnings ) until you have a result that is " significant " .
This is a hidden multiple tests problem .
The " reviewer " or reader has no idea that 7 different tests where tried before getting a significant result .
There are other massive problems with this sort of thing .
Meta studies have the problem of non independence if not done very carefully ( same dataset many publications ) .
Then the small numbers problem makes false positives while having power hard to avoid .
How is violence measured ?
if its from arrests with violent crime , then this a very rare thing ( compared to average ) and makes proper inference very difficult if not totally arbitrary .
We have n't even got to publication bias .
So his quote : Video Game Violence , and media violence in general , are more than proven to increase aggression.Is really misleading at best .
Read the studies .
They do n't say this , because you ca n't .
The data does n't support it .
And what does " aggression " mean ?
Or what defines a violent game or TV show ?
And in this meta study , what was done to " normalize " the different measures of violence and aggression .
There is a reason why a lot of people say psychology/sociology is not a real science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are very real limitations to psychology/sociology studies.
Example:
 
I like to beat on things.
I like to kill ponies and kittens when on the farm.
Theres nothing i enjoy more that a bit of brother beating.
Why i think i will play a game of a)Chess, b)The sims, c) modern warfare 2.
Now real studies have *massive* problems with being totally statistically bogus.
I should know as I sometimes use these studies to show how stats can be so bogus (also some medical studies).
Small numbers aside there are 2 principal causes of bias.
The first is not accounting for natural bias.
Violent games are played by guys mainly.
Violent crime is committed by guys mainly.
Already i can get a correlation that is *not* casual.
The next is miss application of tests.
In particular trying lots of different tests with different parameters (aka chi2 with different binnings) until you have a result that is "significant".
This is a hidden multiple tests problem.
The "reviewer"  or reader has no idea that 7 different tests where tried before getting a significant result.
There are other massive problems with this sort of thing.
Meta studies have the problem of non independence if not done very carefully (same dataset many publications).
Then the small numbers problem makes false positives while having power hard to avoid.
How is violence measured?
if its from arrests with violent crime, then this a very rare thing (compared to average) and makes proper inference very difficult if not totally arbitrary.
We haven't even got to publication bias.
So his quote:Video Game Violence, and media violence in general, are more than proven to increase aggression.Is really misleading at best.
Read the studies.
They don't say this, because you can't.
The data doesn't support it.
And what does "aggression" mean?
Or what defines a violent game or TV show?
And in this meta study, what was done to "normalize" the different measures of violence and aggression.
There is a reason why a lot of people say psychology/sociology is not a real science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322646</id>
	<title>The D&amp;D effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267440360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone remember when the far right religious wing started saying that playing D&amp;D turned people into Satanists who then ritually killed people?  Same stuff, different decade.

Believe it or not, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann\_Coulter" title="wikipedia.org">Ann Coulter</a> [wikipedia.org] of all people even called this type of reasoning BS when she said, "<a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30285" title="humanevents.com">Consider the harmless fantasy game, Dungeons and Dragons -- which happens to be played almost exclusively by young males. When murders were committed in the '80s by (1) young men, who were (2) Dungeons and Dragons enthusiasts, some people concluded that factor (2), rather than factor (1), led to murderous tendencies.</a> [humanevents.com]"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone remember when the far right religious wing started saying that playing D&amp;D turned people into Satanists who then ritually killed people ?
Same stuff , different decade .
Believe it or not , Ann Coulter [ wikipedia.org ] of all people even called this type of reasoning BS when she said , " Consider the harmless fantasy game , Dungeons and Dragons -- which happens to be played almost exclusively by young males .
When murders were committed in the '80s by ( 1 ) young men , who were ( 2 ) Dungeons and Dragons enthusiasts , some people concluded that factor ( 2 ) , rather than factor ( 1 ) , led to murderous tendencies .
[ humanevents.com ] "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone remember when the far right religious wing started saying that playing D&amp;D turned people into Satanists who then ritually killed people?
Same stuff, different decade.
Believe it or not, Ann Coulter [wikipedia.org] of all people even called this type of reasoning BS when she said, "Consider the harmless fantasy game, Dungeons and Dragons -- which happens to be played almost exclusively by young males.
When murders were committed in the '80s by (1) young men, who were (2) Dungeons and Dragons enthusiasts, some people concluded that factor (2), rather than factor (1), led to murderous tendencies.
[humanevents.com]"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323162</id>
	<title>Experimentation Required!</title>
	<author>T-Bone1027</author>
	<datestamp>1267442220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no such thing as a "conclusive" study. Not to mention the fact that he used a compilation of various other studies, at least some of which are probably biased. As much as I hate to think about experimenting on children, the only way to settle this debate would be to conduct an experiment with different treatments and control groups. Since that will probably never happen, these studies really don't do anything but make everyone throw some mud and feel angry. Also, where is any of his data? What was his methodology?  Did he use a 2 proportion Z-test? If so, what was his alpha level, his null and alternative hypotheses? This is really just irresponsible statistics that seems to be aimed at getting attention rather than actually providing useful data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such thing as a " conclusive " study .
Not to mention the fact that he used a compilation of various other studies , at least some of which are probably biased .
As much as I hate to think about experimenting on children , the only way to settle this debate would be to conduct an experiment with different treatments and control groups .
Since that will probably never happen , these studies really do n't do anything but make everyone throw some mud and feel angry .
Also , where is any of his data ?
What was his methodology ?
Did he use a 2 proportion Z-test ?
If so , what was his alpha level , his null and alternative hypotheses ?
This is really just irresponsible statistics that seems to be aimed at getting attention rather than actually providing useful data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such thing as a "conclusive" study.
Not to mention the fact that he used a compilation of various other studies, at least some of which are probably biased.
As much as I hate to think about experimenting on children, the only way to settle this debate would be to conduct an experiment with different treatments and control groups.
Since that will probably never happen, these studies really don't do anything but make everyone throw some mud and feel angry.
Also, where is any of his data?
What was his methodology?
Did he use a 2 proportion Z-test?
If so, what was his alpha level, his null and alternative hypotheses?
This is really just irresponsible statistics that seems to be aimed at getting attention rather than actually providing useful data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324048</id>
	<title>Re:Good?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1267446480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Western children today are inheriting a legacy of squandered resources, environmental destruction, and increased global competition.</i></p><p>Yeah!</p><p>We should have learned from those wise and noble Easter Island natives! I'm sure as the last tree on the entire island was cut down, that Easter Islander was thinking to himself, "I can't believe how those westerners are squandering their resources! Their poor kids!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Western children today are inheriting a legacy of squandered resources , environmental destruction , and increased global competition.Yeah ! We should have learned from those wise and noble Easter Island natives !
I 'm sure as the last tree on the entire island was cut down , that Easter Islander was thinking to himself , " I ca n't believe how those westerners are squandering their resources !
Their poor kids !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Western children today are inheriting a legacy of squandered resources, environmental destruction, and increased global competition.Yeah!We should have learned from those wise and noble Easter Island natives!
I'm sure as the last tree on the entire island was cut down, that Easter Islander was thinking to himself, "I can't believe how those westerners are squandering their resources!
Their poor kids!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322386</id>
	<title>Re:"not huge effects"</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1267439220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You obviously didn't read the article. The guys a psychologist. They don't "rule things out"; they make a hypothesis, collect supporting data, and publish. Their findings are basically fad driven, and impossible to truly prove or disprove.</p><p>This guy has been "studying" video game violence for more than a decade: that it's taken him this long to come up with "conclusive" results is near miraculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously did n't read the article .
The guys a psychologist .
They do n't " rule things out " ; they make a hypothesis , collect supporting data , and publish .
Their findings are basically fad driven , and impossible to truly prove or disprove.This guy has been " studying " video game violence for more than a decade : that it 's taken him this long to come up with " conclusive " results is near miraculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously didn't read the article.
The guys a psychologist.
They don't "rule things out"; they make a hypothesis, collect supporting data, and publish.
Their findings are basically fad driven, and impossible to truly prove or disprove.This guy has been "studying" video game violence for more than a decade: that it's taken him this long to come up with "conclusive" results is near miraculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322818</id>
	<title>Re:"not huge effects"</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1267441020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Duh, aren't you clever! Of course he's thought of that, and if you studied statistical research methods for even a single semester, you'd know how direction of causation is established.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh , are n't you clever !
Of course he 's thought of that , and if you studied statistical research methods for even a single semester , you 'd know how direction of causation is established .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh, aren't you clever!
Of course he's thought of that, and if you studied statistical research methods for even a single semester, you'd know how direction of causation is established.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323320</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>Linux\_ho</author>
	<datestamp>1267442820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, if video games actually influenced real-life behavior, all of us from the Pac-Man generation would be sitting in dark rooms, listening to rhythmic music and popping pills.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , if video games actually influenced real-life behavior , all of us from the Pac-Man generation would be sitting in dark rooms , listening to rhythmic music and popping pills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, if video games actually influenced real-life behavior, all of us from the Pac-Man generation would be sitting in dark rooms, listening to rhythmic music and popping pills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325036</id>
	<title>Re:Violent crime descrese after first video game</title>
	<author>bolthole</author>
	<datestamp>1267452480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oddly enough violent crime has been decreasing since 1992, and is now at 1960 levels.  Ergo another possible conclusion: Video games decrease overall societal violence level.</p></div><p>How about, "video games decrease overall incidence of physical real-life violence, while at the same time increasing tendancy of individuals to trigger violent behaviour"?</p><p>The theoretical reason for the "less real-life violence", being, that there are less people out on the street, because they're all at home playing their games in their rooms.</p><p>math game/gedankenexperiment:<br>Johnny has a 5\% chance of reacting violently to any confrontation. he spends most of his time "in public", and gets into a fight every day.<br>Jimmy has a 20\% chance of reacting violently to any conforntation. he spends 90\% of his free time in his room playing 'Zombie Monster Hater Killer 3d!!!!'.  he gets into a fight approximately once a week.</p><p>Consider that Jimmy is now by inclination a markedly "more violent" person, but he just has less "opportunity" to get into violent confrontations.</p><p>Is society better off with a higher percentage of "Johnny"s, or "Jimmy"s?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough violent crime has been decreasing since 1992 , and is now at 1960 levels .
Ergo another possible conclusion : Video games decrease overall societal violence level.How about , " video games decrease overall incidence of physical real-life violence , while at the same time increasing tendancy of individuals to trigger violent behaviour " ? The theoretical reason for the " less real-life violence " , being , that there are less people out on the street , because they 're all at home playing their games in their rooms.math game/gedankenexperiment : Johnny has a 5 \ % chance of reacting violently to any confrontation .
he spends most of his time " in public " , and gets into a fight every day.Jimmy has a 20 \ % chance of reacting violently to any conforntation .
he spends 90 \ % of his free time in his room playing 'Zombie Monster Hater Killer 3d ! ! ! ! ' .
he gets into a fight approximately once a week.Consider that Jimmy is now by inclination a markedly " more violent " person , but he just has less " opportunity " to get into violent confrontations.Is society better off with a higher percentage of " Johnny " s , or " Jimmy " s ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough violent crime has been decreasing since 1992, and is now at 1960 levels.
Ergo another possible conclusion: Video games decrease overall societal violence level.How about, "video games decrease overall incidence of physical real-life violence, while at the same time increasing tendancy of individuals to trigger violent behaviour"?The theoretical reason for the "less real-life violence", being, that there are less people out on the street, because they're all at home playing their games in their rooms.math game/gedankenexperiment:Johnny has a 5\% chance of reacting violently to any confrontation.
he spends most of his time "in public", and gets into a fight every day.Jimmy has a 20\% chance of reacting violently to any conforntation.
he spends 90\% of his free time in his room playing 'Zombie Monster Hater Killer 3d!!!!'.
he gets into a fight approximately once a week.Consider that Jimmy is now by inclination a markedly "more violent" person, but he just has less "opportunity" to get into violent confrontations.Is society better off with a higher percentage of "Johnny"s, or "Jimmy"s?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322296</id>
	<title>Re:"not huge effects"</title>
	<author>NevarMore</author>
	<datestamp>1267438980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How did they rule out the possibility that children who are prone to violence might also be prone to playing more violent video games?</p></div><p>More importantly, what sources does he cite to genetics and poverty being risk factors for violence?</p><p>The things that everyone "just knows" are the ones that often must be validated with facts and evidence rather than anecdotes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How did they rule out the possibility that children who are prone to violence might also be prone to playing more violent video games ? More importantly , what sources does he cite to genetics and poverty being risk factors for violence ? The things that everyone " just knows " are the ones that often must be validated with facts and evidence rather than anecdotes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did they rule out the possibility that children who are prone to violence might also be prone to playing more violent video games?More importantly, what sources does he cite to genetics and poverty being risk factors for violence?The things that everyone "just knows" are the ones that often must be validated with facts and evidence rather than anecdotes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322578</id>
	<title>Garbage In Garbage Out</title>
	<author>ZeroSumHappiness</author>
	<datestamp>1267440120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that applies well.  If you base your meta-study on bad studies, obviously you'll come to the same (erroneous) conclusions.  I'm sure the author goes through plenty of analysis as to why his basis studies are acceptable...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that applies well .
If you base your meta-study on bad studies , obviously you 'll come to the same ( erroneous ) conclusions .
I 'm sure the author goes through plenty of analysis as to why his basis studies are acceptable.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that applies well.
If you base your meta-study on bad studies, obviously you'll come to the same (erroneous) conclusions.
I'm sure the author goes through plenty of analysis as to why his basis studies are acceptable...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324020</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267446300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you found a study <i>by the same author</i> to support the author.</p><p><i>Video Game Violence, and media violence in general, are more than proven to increase aggression.</i></p><p>And your evidence of repeatable independent experiments showing this, or that this is the scientific consensus?</p><p><i>These studies in no way justify going to huge lengths to censor such violence.</i></p><p>Indeed. Not to mention things like depictions of violence in religion, or coverage in news media, that is never the target of such censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you found a study by the same author to support the author.Video Game Violence , and media violence in general , are more than proven to increase aggression.And your evidence of repeatable independent experiments showing this , or that this is the scientific consensus ? These studies in no way justify going to huge lengths to censor such violence.Indeed .
Not to mention things like depictions of violence in religion , or coverage in news media , that is never the target of such censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you found a study by the same author to support the author.Video Game Violence, and media violence in general, are more than proven to increase aggression.And your evidence of repeatable independent experiments showing this, or that this is the scientific consensus?These studies in no way justify going to huge lengths to censor such violence.Indeed.
Not to mention things like depictions of violence in religion, or coverage in news media, that is never the target of such censorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322472</id>
	<title>Re:So does living in New York</title>
	<author>Amouth</author>
	<datestamp>1267439640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nahh they should just follow Miami's lead</p><p><a href="http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/03/01/169217" title="slashdot.org">http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/03/01/169217</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>stop the few people left who do care and the bum's will starve to death - making room for more non bums in NYC to pay more taxes..</p><p>am i off base? or was i wrong in thinking all laws have a money side to them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nahh they should just follow Miami 's leadhttp : //idle.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 10/03/01/169217 [ slashdot.org ] stop the few people left who do care and the bum 's will starve to death - making room for more non bums in NYC to pay more taxes..am i off base ?
or was i wrong in thinking all laws have a money side to them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nahh they should just follow Miami's leadhttp://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/03/01/169217 [slashdot.org]stop the few people left who do care and the bum's will starve to death - making room for more non bums in NYC to pay more taxes..am i off base?
or was i wrong in thinking all laws have a money side to them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31333124</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>beatsme</author>
	<datestamp>1267558500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's wrong with having an agenda? Objectivity and having goals as a scientist are not mutually exclusive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with having an agenda ?
Objectivity and having goals as a scientist are not mutually exclusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with having an agenda?
Objectivity and having goals as a scientist are not mutually exclusive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323022</id>
	<title>Small correction</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1267441620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reading studies that attacks violent video games makes you more aggresive. If we are going meta, lets go all the way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading studies that attacks violent video games makes you more aggresive .
If we are going meta , lets go all the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading studies that attacks violent video games makes you more aggresive.
If we are going meta, lets go all the way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31328098</id>
	<title>I call BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267531200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I played and still play violent games. I have no violent tendencies. Should that not conclusively prove that violent games are okay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I played and still play violent games .
I have no violent tendencies .
Should that not conclusively prove that violent games are okay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I played and still play violent games.
I have no violent tendencies.
Should that not conclusively prove that violent games are okay?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322906</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267441260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And until you meet these, your study is not conclusive</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And until you meet these , your study is not conclusive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And until you meet these, your study is not conclusive</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322412</id>
	<title>Re:As always...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267439400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way I've always described the effect of violent video games:</p><p>Digital punching bag.  At least for me and some of my friends, the stress release of violent video games made us LESS violent in school.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way I 've always described the effect of violent video games : Digital punching bag .
At least for me and some of my friends , the stress release of violent video games made us LESS violent in school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way I've always described the effect of violent video games:Digital punching bag.
At least for me and some of my friends, the stress release of violent video games made us LESS violent in school.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325378</id>
	<title>Re:Or maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267455240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And do video games <em>not</em> fit hand and glove into "instant gratification/short attention span culture" again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And do video games not fit hand and glove into " instant gratification/short attention span culture " again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And do video games not fit hand and glove into "instant gratification/short attention span culture" again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322758</id>
	<title>After carefull consideration</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1267440780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After careful consideration and employing meta-analytic procedures based upon comments in this and previous stories about violence and video games, it is conclusive that this guy is a moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After careful consideration and employing meta-analytic procedures based upon comments in this and previous stories about violence and video games , it is conclusive that this guy is a moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After careful consideration and employing meta-analytic procedures based upon comments in this and previous stories about violence and video games, it is conclusive that this guy is a moron.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322436</id>
	<title>Re:As always...</title>
	<author>O('\_')O\_Bush</author>
	<datestamp>1267439460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea, you know a lot of psychopathic serial killers released their frustrations now and then on cats and small animals.<br><br>Because that was a better alternative at the time than on people. Sorta filled the same role that a digital city where you can kill people and cops (GTA anyone?) does.<br><br>Now, someone that isn't already twisted isn't going to become so from video games, but it's hard to deny that constantly seeing violence and gore doesn't harden one to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , you know a lot of psychopathic serial killers released their frustrations now and then on cats and small animals.Because that was a better alternative at the time than on people .
Sorta filled the same role that a digital city where you can kill people and cops ( GTA anyone ?
) does.Now , someone that is n't already twisted is n't going to become so from video games , but it 's hard to deny that constantly seeing violence and gore does n't harden one to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, you know a lot of psychopathic serial killers released their frustrations now and then on cats and small animals.Because that was a better alternative at the time than on people.
Sorta filled the same role that a digital city where you can kill people and cops (GTA anyone?
) does.Now, someone that isn't already twisted isn't going to become so from video games, but it's hard to deny that constantly seeing violence and gore doesn't harden one to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323364</id>
	<title>Not biased?? Really?</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1267443060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can anyone say this researcher is not biased, after reading the very first sentence?<p><div class="quote"><p>"Iowa State University Distinguished Professor of Psychology Craig Anderson has made much of his life's work studying how violent video game play affects youth behavior."</p></div><p>
Does anyone really think that if he devoted that much of his life to this cause, that he would do research in such a way as to put himself out of a job?
<br> <br>
Get real. I mean, even if it would not put him out of a job, it would negate much of his life's work. Hardly an "unbiased" position.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can anyone say this researcher is not biased , after reading the very first sentence ?
" Iowa State University Distinguished Professor of Psychology Craig Anderson has made much of his life 's work studying how violent video game play affects youth behavior .
" Does anyone really think that if he devoted that much of his life to this cause , that he would do research in such a way as to put himself out of a job ?
Get real .
I mean , even if it would not put him out of a job , it would negate much of his life 's work .
Hardly an " unbiased " position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can anyone say this researcher is not biased, after reading the very first sentence?
"Iowa State University Distinguished Professor of Psychology Craig Anderson has made much of his life's work studying how violent video game play affects youth behavior.
"
Does anyone really think that if he devoted that much of his life to this cause, that he would do research in such a way as to put himself out of a job?
Get real.
I mean, even if it would not put him out of a job, it would negate much of his life's work.
Hardly an "unbiased" position.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31328170</id>
	<title>Re:As always...</title>
	<author>RadioElectric</author>
	<datestamp>1267531980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yea, you know a lot of psychopathic serial killers released their frustrations now and then on cats and small animals.

Because that was a better alternative at the time than on people. Sorta filled the same role that a digital city where you can kill people and cops (GTA anyone?) does.</p></div><p>This is not a rebuttal to your statement, as I think you're inclined to agree with me, however I thought I might clear up a common misconception.
<br> <br>
Psychopaths typically start small, like you said, and then escalate their behaviour up to the nasty stuff. It tends to be a cycle of <i>doing something</i> and fantasising about <i>doing something</i>. The mistake is to assume that the fantasising isn't "bad", or is somehow desirable compared to the physical acts. This isn't usually the case, as typically fantasising only makes them want to do it "for real" more.
<br> <br>
Source: Some forensic psychologist whose talk I attended years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , you know a lot of psychopathic serial killers released their frustrations now and then on cats and small animals .
Because that was a better alternative at the time than on people .
Sorta filled the same role that a digital city where you can kill people and cops ( GTA anyone ?
) does.This is not a rebuttal to your statement , as I think you 're inclined to agree with me , however I thought I might clear up a common misconception .
Psychopaths typically start small , like you said , and then escalate their behaviour up to the nasty stuff .
It tends to be a cycle of doing something and fantasising about doing something .
The mistake is to assume that the fantasising is n't " bad " , or is somehow desirable compared to the physical acts .
This is n't usually the case , as typically fantasising only makes them want to do it " for real " more .
Source : Some forensic psychologist whose talk I attended years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, you know a lot of psychopathic serial killers released their frustrations now and then on cats and small animals.
Because that was a better alternative at the time than on people.
Sorta filled the same role that a digital city where you can kill people and cops (GTA anyone?
) does.This is not a rebuttal to your statement, as I think you're inclined to agree with me, however I thought I might clear up a common misconception.
Psychopaths typically start small, like you said, and then escalate their behaviour up to the nasty stuff.
It tends to be a cycle of doing something and fantasising about doing something.
The mistake is to assume that the fantasising isn't "bad", or is somehow desirable compared to the physical acts.
This isn't usually the case, as typically fantasising only makes them want to do it "for real" more.
Source: Some forensic psychologist whose talk I attended years ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324958</id>
	<title>Scrutinizing Research Methods</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267451880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The studies themselves need to be scrutinized for accuracy and authenticity; what is the definition of violence and how is it different from the violence we experience playing sports?<br>I stumbled upon this little gem that highlights the errors of these "so-called" studies: <a href="http://www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/uncategorized/kontour-2009-html/" title="digitalcul...cation.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/uncategorized/kontour-2009-html/</a> [digitalcul...cation.com]<br>When will people take credit for the actions (or lack thereof) instead of trying to blame outside influences?</p><p>- Anon<br>aka "to lazy to register"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The studies themselves need to be scrutinized for accuracy and authenticity ; what is the definition of violence and how is it different from the violence we experience playing sports ? I stumbled upon this little gem that highlights the errors of these " so-called " studies : http : //www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/uncategorized/kontour-2009-html/ [ digitalcul...cation.com ] When will people take credit for the actions ( or lack thereof ) instead of trying to blame outside influences ? - Anonaka " to lazy to register "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The studies themselves need to be scrutinized for accuracy and authenticity; what is the definition of violence and how is it different from the violence we experience playing sports?I stumbled upon this little gem that highlights the errors of these "so-called" studies: http://www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/uncategorized/kontour-2009-html/ [digitalcul...cation.com]When will people take credit for the actions (or lack thereof) instead of trying to blame outside influences?- Anonaka "to lazy to register"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323210</id>
	<title>Re:We should keep an open mind about this.</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1267442400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fair enough.</p><p>The summary and all the articles I've read identify this as a metastudy.  The problem with metastudies is that you are standing on the backs of giants, and you don't know how rigorously your giants were built.</p><p>So far, all the articles I've read only mention how he and seven other researchers (at least two of them his students and one a former colleague) did a metastudy of 130 previous studies that involved 130,000 kids, and found a "not huge" effect that is nonetheless clear and irrefutable.  Irrefutable enough that the conversation needs to stop right now and everyone needs to stop questioning it.  And how this finding validates what he refers to as his life's work and something he's been trying to prove for a long time.  But, of course, to get details, I have to <b>buy a book he's authored</b>.</p><p>So, without plunking down $40 on the book the article is advertising, is there somewhere I can read a summary of this metastudy?  What he was looking for specifically as markers that supposedly prove the causation he said he has proven?  What is it about these specific 130 studies that proves something that each one of the individual studies apparently could not?</p><p>Usually, metastudies are really good at correlation, and he may well have demonstrated that there is an identifiable correlation between kids who play video games and kids who engage in violent behavior.  But that's useless in terms of convincing anyone that the video games changed that behavior.  In other words, even telling me that every single child ever convicted of a violent crime was an avid video gamer tells me nothing about whether the video games were a contributing factor to their violent behavior.  A kid with a propensity toward violence may well find violent games and media appealing.</p><p>I can see, and possibly even buy, the argument that exposing a kid to massive violence desensitizes them to it and lowers the barrier toward acting out things in a violent manner.  I don't see how a metastudy is going to demonstrate "conclusive" proof of that theory.  You need to study large groups of real kids, determine their propensity toward violence before playing violent video games, expose part of them to violent video games and media, part to benign video games and media, and do not expose others to games or media at all, and determine if the propensity for violence increases or decreases as a whole in each of your three segments.</p><p>He has made pretty extraordinary claims, claims that happen to prove what he calls his life's work, but in order to learn more you have to buy his book.</p><p>I remain skeptical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair enough.The summary and all the articles I 've read identify this as a metastudy .
The problem with metastudies is that you are standing on the backs of giants , and you do n't know how rigorously your giants were built.So far , all the articles I 've read only mention how he and seven other researchers ( at least two of them his students and one a former colleague ) did a metastudy of 130 previous studies that involved 130,000 kids , and found a " not huge " effect that is nonetheless clear and irrefutable .
Irrefutable enough that the conversation needs to stop right now and everyone needs to stop questioning it .
And how this finding validates what he refers to as his life 's work and something he 's been trying to prove for a long time .
But , of course , to get details , I have to buy a book he 's authored.So , without plunking down $ 40 on the book the article is advertising , is there somewhere I can read a summary of this metastudy ?
What he was looking for specifically as markers that supposedly prove the causation he said he has proven ?
What is it about these specific 130 studies that proves something that each one of the individual studies apparently could not ? Usually , metastudies are really good at correlation , and he may well have demonstrated that there is an identifiable correlation between kids who play video games and kids who engage in violent behavior .
But that 's useless in terms of convincing anyone that the video games changed that behavior .
In other words , even telling me that every single child ever convicted of a violent crime was an avid video gamer tells me nothing about whether the video games were a contributing factor to their violent behavior .
A kid with a propensity toward violence may well find violent games and media appealing.I can see , and possibly even buy , the argument that exposing a kid to massive violence desensitizes them to it and lowers the barrier toward acting out things in a violent manner .
I do n't see how a metastudy is going to demonstrate " conclusive " proof of that theory .
You need to study large groups of real kids , determine their propensity toward violence before playing violent video games , expose part of them to violent video games and media , part to benign video games and media , and do not expose others to games or media at all , and determine if the propensity for violence increases or decreases as a whole in each of your three segments.He has made pretty extraordinary claims , claims that happen to prove what he calls his life 's work , but in order to learn more you have to buy his book.I remain skeptical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair enough.The summary and all the articles I've read identify this as a metastudy.
The problem with metastudies is that you are standing on the backs of giants, and you don't know how rigorously your giants were built.So far, all the articles I've read only mention how he and seven other researchers (at least two of them his students and one a former colleague) did a metastudy of 130 previous studies that involved 130,000 kids, and found a "not huge" effect that is nonetheless clear and irrefutable.
Irrefutable enough that the conversation needs to stop right now and everyone needs to stop questioning it.
And how this finding validates what he refers to as his life's work and something he's been trying to prove for a long time.
But, of course, to get details, I have to buy a book he's authored.So, without plunking down $40 on the book the article is advertising, is there somewhere I can read a summary of this metastudy?
What he was looking for specifically as markers that supposedly prove the causation he said he has proven?
What is it about these specific 130 studies that proves something that each one of the individual studies apparently could not?Usually, metastudies are really good at correlation, and he may well have demonstrated that there is an identifiable correlation between kids who play video games and kids who engage in violent behavior.
But that's useless in terms of convincing anyone that the video games changed that behavior.
In other words, even telling me that every single child ever convicted of a violent crime was an avid video gamer tells me nothing about whether the video games were a contributing factor to their violent behavior.
A kid with a propensity toward violence may well find violent games and media appealing.I can see, and possibly even buy, the argument that exposing a kid to massive violence desensitizes them to it and lowers the barrier toward acting out things in a violent manner.
I don't see how a metastudy is going to demonstrate "conclusive" proof of that theory.
You need to study large groups of real kids, determine their propensity toward violence before playing violent video games, expose part of them to violent video games and media, part to benign video games and media, and do not expose others to games or media at all, and determine if the propensity for violence increases or decreases as a whole in each of your three segments.He has made pretty extraordinary claims, claims that happen to prove what he calls his life's work, but in order to learn more you have to buy his book.I remain skeptical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323556</id>
	<title>Craig Anderson is the</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267443840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jack Chick of the media world. Using Bullshit studies instead of bullshit religion to prove the 'evils' of video games and./or TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jack Chick of the media world .
Using Bullshit studies instead of bullshit religion to prove the 'evils ' of video games and./or TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jack Chick of the media world.
Using Bullshit studies instead of bullshit religion to prove the 'evils' of video games and./or TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322684</id>
	<title>Re:Same sh*t, different decade.</title>
	<author>Amouth</author>
	<datestamp>1267440420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when Columbine happened - i was in the den with my mom and we where watching the news.. they showed this "Violent GAME" that the kids had played - and it was the original DOOM - now my mom had remembered me playing that and looked at me odd when i started laughing..</p><p>i then explained. - this "Expert" on ABC was showing this "Violent GAME" which allowed kids to go around killing everything without any remorse or consequences..</p><p>what was on the screen was the starting level - he was running around with the rocket launcher and gold eyes (aka god mode)</p><p>so he had to cheat at the game to get the skewed point of view he wanted across</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when Columbine happened - i was in the den with my mom and we where watching the news.. they showed this " Violent GAME " that the kids had played - and it was the original DOOM - now my mom had remembered me playing that and looked at me odd when i started laughing..i then explained .
- this " Expert " on ABC was showing this " Violent GAME " which allowed kids to go around killing everything without any remorse or consequences..what was on the screen was the starting level - he was running around with the rocket launcher and gold eyes ( aka god mode ) so he had to cheat at the game to get the skewed point of view he wanted across</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when Columbine happened - i was in the den with my mom and we where watching the news.. they showed this "Violent GAME" that the kids had played - and it was the original DOOM - now my mom had remembered me playing that and looked at me odd when i started laughing..i then explained.
- this "Expert" on ABC was showing this "Violent GAME" which allowed kids to go around killing everything without any remorse or consequences..what was on the screen was the starting level - he was running around with the rocket launcher and gold eyes (aka god mode)so he had to cheat at the game to get the skewed point of view he wanted across</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322846</id>
	<title>Re:I'm dubious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267441080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'<b>How do we make it easier for parents</b> -- within the limits of culture, society and law -- to provide a healthier childhood for their kids?'"</p></div><p>Don't drink that kool-aid.</p><p>This sounds exactly like the beginnings of a presentation on why any given government needs new laws and powers to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."make it easier for parents". In Australia, we are "making it easier for parents" by implementing nation-wide censorship.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'How do we make it easier for parents -- within the limits of culture , society and law -- to provide a healthier childhood for their kids ?
' " Do n't drink that kool-aid.This sounds exactly like the beginnings of a presentation on why any given government needs new laws and powers to ... " make it easier for parents " .
In Australia , we are " making it easier for parents " by implementing nation-wide censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'How do we make it easier for parents -- within the limits of culture, society and law -- to provide a healthier childhood for their kids?
'"Don't drink that kool-aid.This sounds exactly like the beginnings of a presentation on why any given government needs new laws and powers to ..."make it easier for parents".
In Australia, we are "making it easier for parents" by implementing nation-wide censorship.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324306</id>
	<title>'Gaming causes more harm than smoking'</title>
	<author>rec au</author>
	<datestamp>1267447680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'Gaming causes more harm than smoking' - <a href="http://gamers-underground.com/content/387-gaming-causes-more-harm-than-smoking.html" title="gamers-underground.com" rel="nofollow">http://gamers-underground.com/content/387-gaming-causes-more-harm-than-smoking.html</a> [gamers-underground.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Gaming causes more harm than smoking ' - http : //gamers-underground.com/content/387-gaming-causes-more-harm-than-smoking.html [ gamers-underground.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Gaming causes more harm than smoking' - http://gamers-underground.com/content/387-gaming-causes-more-harm-than-smoking.html [gamers-underground.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</id>
	<title>Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>SpuriousLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1267438500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just another study by people with an agenda.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just another study by people with an agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just another study by people with an agenda.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327138</id>
	<title>Re:Violent videogames do not cause violence - BUT</title>
	<author>guyminuslife</author>
	<datestamp>1267473180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Yeah, I make ridiculous analogies, but it's not like I'm RevWaldo or anything."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yeah , I make ridiculous analogies , but it 's not like I 'm RevWaldo or anything .
" ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yeah, I make ridiculous analogies, but it's not like I'm RevWaldo or anything.
" ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323258</id>
	<title>A Meta-Analysis of bad studies creates a bad Meta</title>
	<author>vtechpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1267442580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My wife's PhD thesis was a Meta-Analysis, and I helped her create some new tools for doing the math behind the analysis so I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on the topic. The process (greatly simplified) is this. Dig through hundreds of articles published in peer reviewed journals on the topic you are examining, and find as many as you can that test the specific theory you are studying. All the articles included in the meta-analysis must test the same theory. Next you need to reverse engineer the numbers reported in the article. This can be a bit tricky since each article may have reported their result using different statistical tests. Occasionally some articles don't have all the relevant numbers and you have to contact the author. Once you have all that data together the math is relatively straight forward.</p><p>Presuming that all the other articles that you feed into the process are based on high quality research, then a Meta-Analysis can give you an insight to the overall strength of the results of the theory being tested. As you might imagine this process can easily be a Garbage In Garbage Out sort of situation. The researcher performing the meta-analysis must have the ability to identify bad studies that overlooked key moderating variables, or were simply done poorly and remove these bad studies from their analysis. If you want to attack this meta-analysis, attack the articles it was based off of. A meta-analysis by itself is not 'conclusive' just because of the method it represents. The analysis itself must be performed on many many well done studies in order to have any credibility of its own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife 's PhD thesis was a Meta-Analysis , and I helped her create some new tools for doing the math behind the analysis so I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on the topic .
The process ( greatly simplified ) is this .
Dig through hundreds of articles published in peer reviewed journals on the topic you are examining , and find as many as you can that test the specific theory you are studying .
All the articles included in the meta-analysis must test the same theory .
Next you need to reverse engineer the numbers reported in the article .
This can be a bit tricky since each article may have reported their result using different statistical tests .
Occasionally some articles do n't have all the relevant numbers and you have to contact the author .
Once you have all that data together the math is relatively straight forward.Presuming that all the other articles that you feed into the process are based on high quality research , then a Meta-Analysis can give you an insight to the overall strength of the results of the theory being tested .
As you might imagine this process can easily be a Garbage In Garbage Out sort of situation .
The researcher performing the meta-analysis must have the ability to identify bad studies that overlooked key moderating variables , or were simply done poorly and remove these bad studies from their analysis .
If you want to attack this meta-analysis , attack the articles it was based off of .
A meta-analysis by itself is not 'conclusive ' just because of the method it represents .
The analysis itself must be performed on many many well done studies in order to have any credibility of its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife's PhD thesis was a Meta-Analysis, and I helped her create some new tools for doing the math behind the analysis so I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on the topic.
The process (greatly simplified) is this.
Dig through hundreds of articles published in peer reviewed journals on the topic you are examining, and find as many as you can that test the specific theory you are studying.
All the articles included in the meta-analysis must test the same theory.
Next you need to reverse engineer the numbers reported in the article.
This can be a bit tricky since each article may have reported their result using different statistical tests.
Occasionally some articles don't have all the relevant numbers and you have to contact the author.
Once you have all that data together the math is relatively straight forward.Presuming that all the other articles that you feed into the process are based on high quality research, then a Meta-Analysis can give you an insight to the overall strength of the results of the theory being tested.
As you might imagine this process can easily be a Garbage In Garbage Out sort of situation.
The researcher performing the meta-analysis must have the ability to identify bad studies that overlooked key moderating variables, or were simply done poorly and remove these bad studies from their analysis.
If you want to attack this meta-analysis, attack the articles it was based off of.
A meta-analysis by itself is not 'conclusive' just because of the method it represents.
The analysis itself must be performed on many many well done studies in order to have any credibility of its own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322694</id>
	<title>Re:Violent crime descrese after first video game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267440540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freakonomics provides a better correlation between the legality of abortion and a decrease in violent crime. The authors looked at other countries beyond the U.S. and saw a similar correlation, including a rise in violent crime several years after abortions were banned.</p><p>I think the population size of video gamers in the 90s (and possibly even until a few years ago) was too small to have any affect one way or the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freakonomics provides a better correlation between the legality of abortion and a decrease in violent crime .
The authors looked at other countries beyond the U.S. and saw a similar correlation , including a rise in violent crime several years after abortions were banned.I think the population size of video gamers in the 90s ( and possibly even until a few years ago ) was too small to have any affect one way or the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freakonomics provides a better correlation between the legality of abortion and a decrease in violent crime.
The authors looked at other countries beyond the U.S. and saw a similar correlation, including a rise in violent crime several years after abortions were banned.I think the population size of video gamers in the 90s (and possibly even until a few years ago) was too small to have any affect one way or the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323244</id>
	<title>Re:Or maybe</title>
	<author>gregthebunny</author>
	<datestamp>1267442520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This. Now get off my lawn or I'll txt teh copz n ul b sry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This .
Now get off my lawn or I 'll txt teh copz n ul b sry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This.
Now get off my lawn or I'll txt teh copz n ul b sry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327784</id>
	<title>Re:As always...</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1267526820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't quite agree. Well adjusted kids choose violet video games too. Cus they are fun. The rest I totally agree with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't quite agree .
Well adjusted kids choose violet video games too .
Cus they are fun .
The rest I totally agree with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't quite agree.
Well adjusted kids choose violet video games too.
Cus they are fun.
The rest I totally agree with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324372</id>
	<title>A harsh truth (?)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267448220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alright, guys, I think we need to stop a minute and actually think about this. Naturally, most of the responses to this are somewhat negative, because we are mostly video game fans who have been arguing with stupid, overly publicized studies that claim that video games will make us all into the D.C. sniper. And yes, I agree that lots of the studies to grace these pages have been, in fact, very stupid.</p><p>However, before we continue to lose our shit any more about this one, I think we need to address our own bias. I read (the better part of) the actual draft of the paper that a commenter linked to, and this study does seem fairly reasonable. The author acknowledges that there are tons of factors in violent behavior, and that the effects that he's shown are only really important on the level of society, i.e., it's only even a serious public issue because if millions or billions of people play video games and are slightly more likely to engage in violent acts, it adds up. He readily admits that there are still some question to address, such as whether the studied effects are still important with older gamers, and that he basically can't give a good estimate as to how strong the effects are. Basically, he says that careful analysis of tons of studies conclusively shows that playing violent video games makes people more aggressive, by an amount that is large enough that he knows it exists, but not necessarily any larger. Now, my question is - is that really such a surprise? Sure, there have been competing theories that maybe people might get aggression out by gaming, but those are just ideas. Are we all really that shocked by the notion that simulating violent, murderous competition between ourselves and our fellow man might actually make us <i>a little bit</i> more violent? More to the point, even if it did make us <i>a little bit</i> more violent, is that such a huge problem? I, for one, will still play video games. In fact, in the draft of the study I read, the author even notes the following, when proposing reasons that Eastern cultures might show lower overall effects of media violence than Western cultures:</p><p>"Whereas action and sports games are the most popular genre in the United States and Western countries,role-playing games are the most popular genre in Japan (Yahiro, 2005). Japanese role-playing games often involve text reading, patience, and cooperative fights against computer-controlled characters, and the contexts of the violent video games that children and adolescents are exposed to in Japan are not the same as those in the West."</p><p>So, what he's saying is, playing <i>sports</i> games might be enough of fist-pumping competition to cause more of an upward shift in aggression than <i>role-playing games</i>, even though the latter tend to involve repeatedly killing people (or similar sentient creatures).</p><p>Most of the objections in the above comments seem to be of the following varieties:</p><p>1. You can't prove something like this through a meta-analysis, because it could just be correlation, not causation.</p><p>That is usually a good point when we see research studies of this type. However, the author examined lots of experimental research that involved people playing video games of different types, and then testing their aggressiveness. Experimental research is used to demonstrate causation, not correlation, and even based on the thin amount of information in the main article, the study's author points out that the results hold whether you examine experimental research or correlative studies.</p><p>2. Video games have been on the rise for decades, and violent crime continues to drop.</p><p>Sorry, guys, this is one of my favorite counter-arguments, too, but as we noted in our first complaint, correlation does not imply causation.</p><p>3. Since this is just a big meta-analysis, he might have just examined tons of really crappy studies.</p><p>This one just kind of tastes bad to me. See, if we are scientists, we get really irritated when people claim that the scientific community might have j</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright , guys , I think we need to stop a minute and actually think about this .
Naturally , most of the responses to this are somewhat negative , because we are mostly video game fans who have been arguing with stupid , overly publicized studies that claim that video games will make us all into the D.C. sniper. And yes , I agree that lots of the studies to grace these pages have been , in fact , very stupid.However , before we continue to lose our shit any more about this one , I think we need to address our own bias .
I read ( the better part of ) the actual draft of the paper that a commenter linked to , and this study does seem fairly reasonable .
The author acknowledges that there are tons of factors in violent behavior , and that the effects that he 's shown are only really important on the level of society , i.e. , it 's only even a serious public issue because if millions or billions of people play video games and are slightly more likely to engage in violent acts , it adds up .
He readily admits that there are still some question to address , such as whether the studied effects are still important with older gamers , and that he basically ca n't give a good estimate as to how strong the effects are .
Basically , he says that careful analysis of tons of studies conclusively shows that playing violent video games makes people more aggressive , by an amount that is large enough that he knows it exists , but not necessarily any larger .
Now , my question is - is that really such a surprise ?
Sure , there have been competing theories that maybe people might get aggression out by gaming , but those are just ideas .
Are we all really that shocked by the notion that simulating violent , murderous competition between ourselves and our fellow man might actually make us a little bit more violent ?
More to the point , even if it did make us a little bit more violent , is that such a huge problem ?
I , for one , will still play video games .
In fact , in the draft of the study I read , the author even notes the following , when proposing reasons that Eastern cultures might show lower overall effects of media violence than Western cultures : " Whereas action and sports games are the most popular genre in the United States and Western countries,role-playing games are the most popular genre in Japan ( Yahiro , 2005 ) .
Japanese role-playing games often involve text reading , patience , and cooperative fights against computer-controlled characters , and the contexts of the violent video games that children and adolescents are exposed to in Japan are not the same as those in the West .
" So , what he 's saying is , playing sports games might be enough of fist-pumping competition to cause more of an upward shift in aggression than role-playing games , even though the latter tend to involve repeatedly killing people ( or similar sentient creatures ) .Most of the objections in the above comments seem to be of the following varieties : 1 .
You ca n't prove something like this through a meta-analysis , because it could just be correlation , not causation.That is usually a good point when we see research studies of this type .
However , the author examined lots of experimental research that involved people playing video games of different types , and then testing their aggressiveness .
Experimental research is used to demonstrate causation , not correlation , and even based on the thin amount of information in the main article , the study 's author points out that the results hold whether you examine experimental research or correlative studies.2 .
Video games have been on the rise for decades , and violent crime continues to drop.Sorry , guys , this is one of my favorite counter-arguments , too , but as we noted in our first complaint , correlation does not imply causation.3 .
Since this is just a big meta-analysis , he might have just examined tons of really crappy studies.This one just kind of tastes bad to me .
See , if we are scientists , we get really irritated when people claim that the scientific community might have j</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright, guys, I think we need to stop a minute and actually think about this.
Naturally, most of the responses to this are somewhat negative, because we are mostly video game fans who have been arguing with stupid, overly publicized studies that claim that video games will make us all into the D.C. sniper. And yes, I agree that lots of the studies to grace these pages have been, in fact, very stupid.However, before we continue to lose our shit any more about this one, I think we need to address our own bias.
I read (the better part of) the actual draft of the paper that a commenter linked to, and this study does seem fairly reasonable.
The author acknowledges that there are tons of factors in violent behavior, and that the effects that he's shown are only really important on the level of society, i.e., it's only even a serious public issue because if millions or billions of people play video games and are slightly more likely to engage in violent acts, it adds up.
He readily admits that there are still some question to address, such as whether the studied effects are still important with older gamers, and that he basically can't give a good estimate as to how strong the effects are.
Basically, he says that careful analysis of tons of studies conclusively shows that playing violent video games makes people more aggressive, by an amount that is large enough that he knows it exists, but not necessarily any larger.
Now, my question is - is that really such a surprise?
Sure, there have been competing theories that maybe people might get aggression out by gaming, but those are just ideas.
Are we all really that shocked by the notion that simulating violent, murderous competition between ourselves and our fellow man might actually make us a little bit more violent?
More to the point, even if it did make us a little bit more violent, is that such a huge problem?
I, for one, will still play video games.
In fact, in the draft of the study I read, the author even notes the following, when proposing reasons that Eastern cultures might show lower overall effects of media violence than Western cultures:"Whereas action and sports games are the most popular genre in the United States and Western countries,role-playing games are the most popular genre in Japan (Yahiro, 2005).
Japanese role-playing games often involve text reading, patience, and cooperative fights against computer-controlled characters, and the contexts of the violent video games that children and adolescents are exposed to in Japan are not the same as those in the West.
"So, what he's saying is, playing sports games might be enough of fist-pumping competition to cause more of an upward shift in aggression than role-playing games, even though the latter tend to involve repeatedly killing people (or similar sentient creatures).Most of the objections in the above comments seem to be of the following varieties:1.
You can't prove something like this through a meta-analysis, because it could just be correlation, not causation.That is usually a good point when we see research studies of this type.
However, the author examined lots of experimental research that involved people playing video games of different types, and then testing their aggressiveness.
Experimental research is used to demonstrate causation, not correlation, and even based on the thin amount of information in the main article, the study's author points out that the results hold whether you examine experimental research or correlative studies.2.
Video games have been on the rise for decades, and violent crime continues to drop.Sorry, guys, this is one of my favorite counter-arguments, too, but as we noted in our first complaint, correlation does not imply causation.3.
Since this is just a big meta-analysis, he might have just examined tons of really crappy studies.This one just kind of tastes bad to me.
See, if we are scientists, we get really irritated when people claim that the scientific community might have j</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327274</id>
	<title>dumbed down and violent games</title>
	<author>max847</author>
	<datestamp>1267562520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to agree that over the years as a game player that  games especially MMOs have gotten dumer and more violent  actually cutting other parts of content   the latest example is STAR TREK ONLINE that was expected to be a very diverse and immersive game which was one of the best platforms for imbeded learning in the last 15 years but cryptic dissreguarded this and  ultimatly  released yet another HACK and BLAST game they didnt even bother to include all the planets in our own solar system! and the scanning and charting and exploring has been all but excluded  it is the same fate with crafting.  it may LOOK like star trek but it definatly is only a weak mirage of what it should be..
they should require games to include  imbeded educational content  either in an organic mode  such as learning to be a medic,, or a stealth mode such as data needed to complete a quest or with crafting or economy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree that over the years as a game player that games especially MMOs have gotten dumer and more violent actually cutting other parts of content the latest example is STAR TREK ONLINE that was expected to be a very diverse and immersive game which was one of the best platforms for imbeded learning in the last 15 years but cryptic dissreguarded this and ultimatly released yet another HACK and BLAST game they didnt even bother to include all the planets in our own solar system !
and the scanning and charting and exploring has been all but excluded it is the same fate with crafting .
it may LOOK like star trek but it definatly is only a weak mirage of what it should be. . they should require games to include imbeded educational content either in an organic mode such as learning to be a medic, , or a stealth mode such as data needed to complete a quest or with crafting or economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree that over the years as a game player that  games especially MMOs have gotten dumer and more violent  actually cutting other parts of content   the latest example is STAR TREK ONLINE that was expected to be a very diverse and immersive game which was one of the best platforms for imbeded learning in the last 15 years but cryptic dissreguarded this and  ultimatly  released yet another HACK and BLAST game they didnt even bother to include all the planets in our own solar system!
and the scanning and charting and exploring has been all but excluded  it is the same fate with crafting.
it may LOOK like star trek but it definatly is only a weak mirage of what it should be..
they should require games to include  imbeded educational content  either in an organic mode  such as learning to be a medic,, or a stealth mode such as data needed to complete a quest or with crafting or economy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322206</id>
	<title>The science is settled!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The latest meta-study that analyzed research from 130 different reports claims to have "conclusively proven"</p></div></blockquote><p>Pay no attention to the <strong>stolen</strong> e-mails. The behavior science is settled, and the scientific consensus is:</p><blockquote><div><p>that violent video games make more aggressive, less caring kids.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The latest meta-study that analyzed research from 130 different reports claims to have " conclusively proven " Pay no attention to the stolen e-mails .
The behavior science is settled , and the scientific consensus is : that violent video games make more aggressive , less caring kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The latest meta-study that analyzed research from 130 different reports claims to have "conclusively proven"Pay no attention to the stolen e-mails.
The behavior science is settled, and the scientific consensus is:that violent video games make more aggressive, less caring kids.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327260</id>
	<title>the researchers are high school drop outs</title>
	<author>rico13</author>
	<datestamp>1267562280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>these "researchers" are just trying to justify their existence
they must be seen to be productive or they get dissolved
it's that simple
losers</htmltext>
<tokenext>these " researchers " are just trying to justify their existence they must be seen to be productive or they get dissolved it 's that simple losers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>these "researchers" are just trying to justify their existence
they must be seen to be productive or they get dissolved
it's that simple
losers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323268</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty balanced view</title>
	<author>Ragica</author>
	<datestamp>1267442580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have been playing GTA San Andreas again, as I recently discovered it runs nearly perfectly under WINE. And it is still a truly awesome game.

<p>I must admit though that now when I'm out on the street, I can't help but want to jump into every car I see and do some crazy burn outs, smash into a few things, and then abandon it in flames.

</p><p>So far I have resisted. But it's only a matter of time...

</p><p>A few days ago I had the annoying cops after me in a smashed up car. Cycle cop was on my tail, nailing me with his submachine gun. So annoying! Engine smoking, I just needed to hit the ramp at the end of a parking lot and jump through the hovering star, clear a few lanes of traffic, and the heat would be reduced a little at least.

</p><p>Noooooo! As I'm launching off the ramp my engine bursts into flames. I hit the star, but I'm airborne and I'm going to "die"! Bail! Bail! Wacking the buttons madly. I'm sailing over a busy two-lane northbound road. My door opens, and my body flings itself out. In an amazing stroke of luck, I land on a passing car which carries me north, as I spin around in time to see my flaming vehicle, now rapidly descending, explode shortly before smashing into the pavement. This sets off a chain reaction in the nearby traffic of exploding cars. Meanwhile I'm rushing away on the roof of another car, like the insane surfer that I know deep down in my heart that I am, the cops no longer quite so interested in my whereabouts.

</p><p>It all went so gloriously smoothly. I have to admit that I'm not sure I could pull it off quite so nicely in real life... but on the other hand, it didn't seem that hard. I didn't even know I could bail from a car in mid-air like that until I tried. Maybe I think I can't do these things so well in real life just because I haven't tried?

</p><p>I have kids, alas too young yet to introduce me to the more modern world of video game carnage. But it is some days the only thing that seems worth waiting for in life...

</p><p>If only I can hold off my urges until then. Then me and the boy, we can probably without too much trouble, kick this entire planet's ass into the sun!

</p><p>Prepare yourself for solar pwnage, n00bs. I'll teach you about global warming<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been playing GTA San Andreas again , as I recently discovered it runs nearly perfectly under WINE .
And it is still a truly awesome game .
I must admit though that now when I 'm out on the street , I ca n't help but want to jump into every car I see and do some crazy burn outs , smash into a few things , and then abandon it in flames .
So far I have resisted .
But it 's only a matter of time.. . A few days ago I had the annoying cops after me in a smashed up car .
Cycle cop was on my tail , nailing me with his submachine gun .
So annoying !
Engine smoking , I just needed to hit the ramp at the end of a parking lot and jump through the hovering star , clear a few lanes of traffic , and the heat would be reduced a little at least .
Noooooo ! As I 'm launching off the ramp my engine bursts into flames .
I hit the star , but I 'm airborne and I 'm going to " die " !
Bail ! Bail !
Wacking the buttons madly .
I 'm sailing over a busy two-lane northbound road .
My door opens , and my body flings itself out .
In an amazing stroke of luck , I land on a passing car which carries me north , as I spin around in time to see my flaming vehicle , now rapidly descending , explode shortly before smashing into the pavement .
This sets off a chain reaction in the nearby traffic of exploding cars .
Meanwhile I 'm rushing away on the roof of another car , like the insane surfer that I know deep down in my heart that I am , the cops no longer quite so interested in my whereabouts .
It all went so gloriously smoothly .
I have to admit that I 'm not sure I could pull it off quite so nicely in real life... but on the other hand , it did n't seem that hard .
I did n't even know I could bail from a car in mid-air like that until I tried .
Maybe I think I ca n't do these things so well in real life just because I have n't tried ?
I have kids , alas too young yet to introduce me to the more modern world of video game carnage .
But it is some days the only thing that seems worth waiting for in life.. . If only I can hold off my urges until then .
Then me and the boy , we can probably without too much trouble , kick this entire planet 's ass into the sun !
Prepare yourself for solar pwnage , n00bs .
I 'll teach you about global warming .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been playing GTA San Andreas again, as I recently discovered it runs nearly perfectly under WINE.
And it is still a truly awesome game.
I must admit though that now when I'm out on the street, I can't help but want to jump into every car I see and do some crazy burn outs, smash into a few things, and then abandon it in flames.
So far I have resisted.
But it's only a matter of time...

A few days ago I had the annoying cops after me in a smashed up car.
Cycle cop was on my tail, nailing me with his submachine gun.
So annoying!
Engine smoking, I just needed to hit the ramp at the end of a parking lot and jump through the hovering star, clear a few lanes of traffic, and the heat would be reduced a little at least.
Noooooo! As I'm launching off the ramp my engine bursts into flames.
I hit the star, but I'm airborne and I'm going to "die"!
Bail! Bail!
Wacking the buttons madly.
I'm sailing over a busy two-lane northbound road.
My door opens, and my body flings itself out.
In an amazing stroke of luck, I land on a passing car which carries me north, as I spin around in time to see my flaming vehicle, now rapidly descending, explode shortly before smashing into the pavement.
This sets off a chain reaction in the nearby traffic of exploding cars.
Meanwhile I'm rushing away on the roof of another car, like the insane surfer that I know deep down in my heart that I am, the cops no longer quite so interested in my whereabouts.
It all went so gloriously smoothly.
I have to admit that I'm not sure I could pull it off quite so nicely in real life... but on the other hand, it didn't seem that hard.
I didn't even know I could bail from a car in mid-air like that until I tried.
Maybe I think I can't do these things so well in real life just because I haven't tried?
I have kids, alas too young yet to introduce me to the more modern world of video game carnage.
But it is some days the only thing that seems worth waiting for in life...

If only I can hold off my urges until then.
Then me and the boy, we can probably without too much trouble, kick this entire planet's ass into the sun!
Prepare yourself for solar pwnage, n00bs.
I'll teach you about global warming ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323938</id>
	<title>Re:the /. community</title>
	<author>chickenarise</author>
	<datestamp>1267445880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mod away - i have karma to burn.</p></div><p>Psssh, when you say that you almost always just get modded up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod away - i have karma to burn.Psssh , when you say that you almost always just get modded up : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod away - i have karma to burn.Psssh, when you say that you almost always just get modded up :P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322532</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267439940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like the logic, all rapists drink water it must be the water!  Time to start watering our plnts with BRAWNDO The Thirst Mutilator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the logic , all rapists drink water it must be the water !
Time to start watering our plnts with BRAWNDO The Thirst Mutilator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the logic, all rapists drink water it must be the water!
Time to start watering our plnts with BRAWNDO The Thirst Mutilator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322876</id>
	<title>Re:Same sh*t, different decade.</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1267441200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, the context here is important.  Which is worse, a parent who plays CoD with his kid, explains to him the difference between reality and games, takes the opportunity to explain some things about politics and war and maybe even a little history, in the process actually developing a relationship with their kid, or a parent who just says "no violent video games!" and sits little johnny in front of the TV?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , the context here is important .
Which is worse , a parent who plays CoD with his kid , explains to him the difference between reality and games , takes the opportunity to explain some things about politics and war and maybe even a little history , in the process actually developing a relationship with their kid , or a parent who just says " no violent video games !
" and sits little johnny in front of the TV ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, the context here is important.
Which is worse, a parent who plays CoD with his kid, explains to him the difference between reality and games, takes the opportunity to explain some things about politics and war and maybe even a little history, in the process actually developing a relationship with their kid, or a parent who just says "no violent video games!
" and sits little johnny in front of the TV?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324870</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... no.</title>
	<author>bolthole</author>
	<datestamp>1267451340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>swearing, and violence, are not interchangable.</p><p>swearing may accompany violence. but swearing in and of itself, is not violent.<br>(just "distasteful"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-p )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>swearing , and violence , are not interchangable.swearing may accompany violence .
but swearing in and of itself , is not violent .
( just " distasteful " : -p )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>swearing, and violence, are not interchangable.swearing may accompany violence.
but swearing in and of itself, is not violent.
(just "distasteful" :-p )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323106</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>smartr</author>
	<datestamp>1267441920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not far from telling a group consisting mostly of Atheists, that the Pope is the definitive authority on God.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not far from telling a group consisting mostly of Atheists , that the Pope is the definitive authority on God .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not far from telling a group consisting mostly of Atheists, that the Pope is the definitive authority on God.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327214</id>
	<title>Tick....tick...tick</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1267561560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well heck now, when I were a youngster like you fellows, we didn't have no fancy cell telephones nor many kids' tv shows to distract us. We watched the news which was full of bombs being dropped and people being maimed or killed, plus the constant threat of a theatre nuclear war that would destroy our society even faster than the closing down of all the mining, steelworks and other industry. We had to go to arcades to play games that slaughtered masses of aliens or humans and when we didn't have the money for that we would borrow 'video nasties' full of gore  from each other. Yup, i have been a-playing violent video games for over thirty years. I don't know when I am going to snap and slaughter the neighbourhood, but it had better be soon as I am declining in fitness, visual acuity, hand-eye coordination and hearing at an accelerating rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well heck now , when I were a youngster like you fellows , we did n't have no fancy cell telephones nor many kids ' tv shows to distract us .
We watched the news which was full of bombs being dropped and people being maimed or killed , plus the constant threat of a theatre nuclear war that would destroy our society even faster than the closing down of all the mining , steelworks and other industry .
We had to go to arcades to play games that slaughtered masses of aliens or humans and when we did n't have the money for that we would borrow 'video nasties ' full of gore from each other .
Yup , i have been a-playing violent video games for over thirty years .
I do n't know when I am going to snap and slaughter the neighbourhood , but it had better be soon as I am declining in fitness , visual acuity , hand-eye coordination and hearing at an accelerating rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well heck now, when I were a youngster like you fellows, we didn't have no fancy cell telephones nor many kids' tv shows to distract us.
We watched the news which was full of bombs being dropped and people being maimed or killed, plus the constant threat of a theatre nuclear war that would destroy our society even faster than the closing down of all the mining, steelworks and other industry.
We had to go to arcades to play games that slaughtered masses of aliens or humans and when we didn't have the money for that we would borrow 'video nasties' full of gore  from each other.
Yup, i have been a-playing violent video games for over thirty years.
I don't know when I am going to snap and slaughter the neighbourhood, but it had better be soon as I am declining in fitness, visual acuity, hand-eye coordination and hearing at an accelerating rate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324090</id>
	<title>Re:"not huge effects"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267446660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also FTA:</p><p>"'We can now say with utmost confidence that regardless of research method -- that is experimental, correlational, or longitudinal -- and regardless of the cultures tested in this study [East and West], you get the same effects,' said Anderson, who is also director of Iowa State's Center for the Study of Violence."</p><p>So, according to his analysis, it's the same whether you look at studies of correlation or experiments, i.e., studies of causation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also FTA : " 'We can now say with utmost confidence that regardless of research method -- that is experimental , correlational , or longitudinal -- and regardless of the cultures tested in this study [ East and West ] , you get the same effects, ' said Anderson , who is also director of Iowa State 's Center for the Study of Violence .
" So , according to his analysis , it 's the same whether you look at studies of correlation or experiments , i.e. , studies of causation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also FTA:"'We can now say with utmost confidence that regardless of research method -- that is experimental, correlational, or longitudinal -- and regardless of the cultures tested in this study [East and West], you get the same effects,' said Anderson, who is also director of Iowa State's Center for the Study of Violence.
"So, according to his analysis, it's the same whether you look at studies of correlation or experiments, i.e., studies of causation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323000</id>
	<title>Re:Or maybe</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1267441560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe, given the way crime has been dropping since 1992, society is actually generating more caring, less violent children despite what the media and researchers with agendas would have you believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe , given the way crime has been dropping since 1992 , society is actually generating more caring , less violent children despite what the media and researchers with agendas would have you believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe, given the way crime has been dropping since 1992, society is actually generating more caring, less violent children despite what the media and researchers with agendas would have you believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322196</id>
	<title>Definitive on what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That he's a complete loon, idiot, incompetent?<br>Sorry - but we grew up on ultra-violent-tv -    bugs bunny / road-runner / daffy duck / elmer fudd - etc... drek-cetra - always getting shot, blown up, smashed, poisoned, etc...</p><p>Before that, it was war, television broadcasts, movie shorts, etc...</p><p>Before that it was real-life - wild-animals, bandits, thieves, scum, etc, drek-cetra</p><p>The human race is violent... The entertainment we choose is violent.  Always has, always will be.</p><p>Sorry - same thing, different generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That he 's a complete loon , idiot , incompetent ? Sorry - but we grew up on ultra-violent-tv - bugs bunny / road-runner / daffy duck / elmer fudd - etc... drek-cetra - always getting shot , blown up , smashed , poisoned , etc...Before that , it was war , television broadcasts , movie shorts , etc...Before that it was real-life - wild-animals , bandits , thieves , scum , etc , drek-cetraThe human race is violent... The entertainment we choose is violent .
Always has , always will be.Sorry - same thing , different generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That he's a complete loon, idiot, incompetent?Sorry - but we grew up on ultra-violent-tv -    bugs bunny / road-runner / daffy duck / elmer fudd - etc... drek-cetra - always getting shot, blown up, smashed, poisoned, etc...Before that, it was war, television broadcasts, movie shorts, etc...Before that it was real-life - wild-animals, bandits, thieves, scum, etc, drek-cetraThe human race is violent... The entertainment we choose is violent.
Always has, always will be.Sorry - same thing, different generation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323762</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>Moryath</author>
	<datestamp>1267444980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering, suffering leads to violence, violence leads to cheese danishes... wait that's not right...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fear leads to anger , anger leads to hate , hate leads to suffering , suffering leads to violence , violence leads to cheese danishes... wait that 's not right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering, suffering leads to violence, violence leads to cheese danishes... wait that's not right...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322712</id>
	<title>Re:As always...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267440660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the catharsis myth.  It's not true.</p><p>http://devoidarex.newsvine.com/\_news/2006/02/28/112741-the-myth-of-catharsis-maybe-you-ought-to-leave-that-pillow-alone</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the catharsis myth .
It 's not true.http : //devoidarex.newsvine.com/ \ _news/2006/02/28/112741-the-myth-of-catharsis-maybe-you-ought-to-leave-that-pillow-alone</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the catharsis myth.
It's not true.http://devoidarex.newsvine.com/\_news/2006/02/28/112741-the-myth-of-catharsis-maybe-you-ought-to-leave-that-pillow-alone</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327154</id>
	<title>Re:the /. community</title>
	<author>guyminuslife</author>
	<datestamp>1267473420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Video Game Violence: Liberal Hoax?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Video Game Violence : Liberal Hoax ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video Game Violence: Liberal Hoax?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323570</id>
	<title>Re:Violent videogames do not cause violence - BUT</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267443900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You offer the exact same proof he does. i.e. NOTHING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You offer the exact same proof he does .
i.e. NOTHING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You offer the exact same proof he does.
i.e. NOTHING.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31330238</id>
	<title>Re:Same sh*t, different decade.</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1267547220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone remember the <i>Simpsons</i> episode where Maggie copies Itchy &amp; Scratchy? Homer gets (hilariously) hurt and Marge goes on a crusade against animated violence.</p><p>The genius of the episode was that Groening and crew hit 3 birds with one stone:</p><ol><li>The absurdity of eliminating violence from media, given that life is prone to violence-- just watch a 2-year-old be denied what she really wants, and you'll see this point <i>very</i> quickly.</li><li>The fact that kids do, in fact, spend way too much time in front of a glowing screen instead of enjoying the world as their predecessors did.</li><li>The natural tendency of such crusades to try to moralize everything (as it becomes a power game), as Marge's group did in trying to prevent the showing of Michelangelo's David statue for nudity.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone remember the Simpsons episode where Maggie copies Itchy &amp; Scratchy ?
Homer gets ( hilariously ) hurt and Marge goes on a crusade against animated violence.The genius of the episode was that Groening and crew hit 3 birds with one stone : The absurdity of eliminating violence from media , given that life is prone to violence-- just watch a 2-year-old be denied what she really wants , and you 'll see this point very quickly.The fact that kids do , in fact , spend way too much time in front of a glowing screen instead of enjoying the world as their predecessors did.The natural tendency of such crusades to try to moralize everything ( as it becomes a power game ) , as Marge 's group did in trying to prevent the showing of Michelangelo 's David statue for nudity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone remember the Simpsons episode where Maggie copies Itchy &amp; Scratchy?
Homer gets (hilariously) hurt and Marge goes on a crusade against animated violence.The genius of the episode was that Groening and crew hit 3 birds with one stone:The absurdity of eliminating violence from media, given that life is prone to violence-- just watch a 2-year-old be denied what she really wants, and you'll see this point very quickly.The fact that kids do, in fact, spend way too much time in front of a glowing screen instead of enjoying the world as their predecessors did.The natural tendency of such crusades to try to moralize everything (as it becomes a power game), as Marge's group did in trying to prevent the showing of Michelangelo's David statue for nudity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323446</id>
	<title>NO meta study iis conlusive</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267443420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in fact, they're are only slightly worse then the worst study in the batch.</p><p>That said, there is nothing wrong with meta studies, you just need to keep in mind the pitfalls.</p><p>The man wrote this piece of shit:<br><a href="http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx" title="apa.org">http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx</a> [apa.org]</p><p>it's chalk full of logical fallacies and misinformation.</p><p>I could use his exact same arguments to prove that drinking milk causes kids to be more violent.</p><p>His work is sloppy. Anyone with some dignity would recognize that and either do a good series of studies, you stop flapping their gums about their pet project.</p><p>One day, he decided the he could build a career of proving TV cause violent behavior;which he molded to include video games; Which is fine, but when your data relies on specifically cherry picked studies, it is highly unlikely you have found any plausible causation.</p><p>Anecdotal information actually shows opposite patterns. Talk to any drill sergeant about who he would rather be training, a high school football player or a video game player.</p><p>Yeah, it's just anecdotal, and could very likely be wrong due ti some sort of bias. I am just the picky sort that wants to look at the actual studies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in fact , they 're are only slightly worse then the worst study in the batch.That said , there is nothing wrong with meta studies , you just need to keep in mind the pitfalls.The man wrote this piece of shit : http : //www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx [ apa.org ] it 's chalk full of logical fallacies and misinformation.I could use his exact same arguments to prove that drinking milk causes kids to be more violent.His work is sloppy .
Anyone with some dignity would recognize that and either do a good series of studies , you stop flapping their gums about their pet project.One day , he decided the he could build a career of proving TV cause violent behavior ; which he molded to include video games ; Which is fine , but when your data relies on specifically cherry picked studies , it is highly unlikely you have found any plausible causation.Anecdotal information actually shows opposite patterns .
Talk to any drill sergeant about who he would rather be training , a high school football player or a video game player.Yeah , it 's just anecdotal , and could very likely be wrong due ti some sort of bias .
I am just the picky sort that wants to look at the actual studies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in fact, they're are only slightly worse then the worst study in the batch.That said, there is nothing wrong with meta studies, you just need to keep in mind the pitfalls.The man wrote this piece of shit:http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx [apa.org]it's chalk full of logical fallacies and misinformation.I could use his exact same arguments to prove that drinking milk causes kids to be more violent.His work is sloppy.
Anyone with some dignity would recognize that and either do a good series of studies, you stop flapping their gums about their pet project.One day, he decided the he could build a career of proving TV cause violent behavior;which he molded to include video games; Which is fine, but when your data relies on specifically cherry picked studies, it is highly unlikely you have found any plausible causation.Anecdotal information actually shows opposite patterns.
Talk to any drill sergeant about who he would rather be training, a high school football player or a video game player.Yeah, it's just anecdotal, and could very likely be wrong due ti some sort of bias.
I am just the picky sort that wants to look at the actual studies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322382</id>
	<title>Re:The science is settled!</title>
	<author>DeadDecoy</author>
	<datestamp>1267439220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how biased these reports are... Usually, in peer-reviewed journal articles, there is more of a tendency to publish successful experiments and slide unsuccessful ones under the rug. So, if I report sets out to link violence and video games, and fails, it might not get published versus one that does. It seems to me like there would be plenty of confounding factors to make this meta study moot. <br>
Besides, a study that uses meta-analysis to 'prove' something 'conclusively' makes my bullshit-meter rise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how biased these reports are... Usually , in peer-reviewed journal articles , there is more of a tendency to publish successful experiments and slide unsuccessful ones under the rug .
So , if I report sets out to link violence and video games , and fails , it might not get published versus one that does .
It seems to me like there would be plenty of confounding factors to make this meta study moot .
Besides , a study that uses meta-analysis to 'prove ' something 'conclusively ' makes my bullshit-meter rise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how biased these reports are... Usually, in peer-reviewed journal articles, there is more of a tendency to publish successful experiments and slide unsuccessful ones under the rug.
So, if I report sets out to link violence and video games, and fails, it might not get published versus one that does.
It seems to me like there would be plenty of confounding factors to make this meta study moot.
Besides, a study that uses meta-analysis to 'prove' something 'conclusively' makes my bullshit-meter rise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322666</id>
	<title>Re:I'll shoot anyone in the face who says that I'm</title>
	<author>nebaz</author>
	<datestamp>1267440420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're vi?  Nice to meet you, vi, I'm emacs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're vi ?
Nice to meet you , vi , I 'm emacs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're vi?
Nice to meet you, vi, I'm emacs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31329004</id>
	<title>Re:I'll shoot anyone in the face who says that I'm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267541040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oddly enough, my first experience with vi was similar to that of being shot in the face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough , my first experience with vi was similar to that of being shot in the face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough, my first experience with vi was similar to that of being shot in the face.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327326</id>
	<title>Re:As always...</title>
	<author>sarahbau</author>
	<datestamp>1267563240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not hard to deny. Unless someone is just detached from reality, seeing something in a game or movie does not harden them to seeing it in real life. I played Unreal Tournament for years, with my favorite weapons being the flak cannon, which would blow people into "gibs," and the sniper rifle, which would shoot their heads clean off. I don't think I'm any more hardened to real-life gore than someone who hasn't played violent/gory games. I literally couldn't hurt a bug. I catch them and let them go outside.</p><p>Also, if seeing gore is all it takes to be desensitized to it and more likely to inflict it on others, wouldn't surgeons be turning into killers left and right? They see the insides of people on a daily basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not hard to deny .
Unless someone is just detached from reality , seeing something in a game or movie does not harden them to seeing it in real life .
I played Unreal Tournament for years , with my favorite weapons being the flak cannon , which would blow people into " gibs , " and the sniper rifle , which would shoot their heads clean off .
I do n't think I 'm any more hardened to real-life gore than someone who has n't played violent/gory games .
I literally could n't hurt a bug .
I catch them and let them go outside.Also , if seeing gore is all it takes to be desensitized to it and more likely to inflict it on others , would n't surgeons be turning into killers left and right ?
They see the insides of people on a daily basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not hard to deny.
Unless someone is just detached from reality, seeing something in a game or movie does not harden them to seeing it in real life.
I played Unreal Tournament for years, with my favorite weapons being the flak cannon, which would blow people into "gibs," and the sniper rifle, which would shoot their heads clean off.
I don't think I'm any more hardened to real-life gore than someone who hasn't played violent/gory games.
I literally couldn't hurt a bug.
I catch them and let them go outside.Also, if seeing gore is all it takes to be desensitized to it and more likely to inflict it on others, wouldn't surgeons be turning into killers left and right?
They see the insides of people on a daily basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323872</id>
	<title>Re:Violent videogames do not cause violence - BUT</title>
	<author>azenpunk</author>
	<datestamp>1267445580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps a good reason people should not bother worrying about what 'normal' behaviour is and instead aim for ethical behaviour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps a good reason people should not bother worrying about what 'normal ' behaviour is and instead aim for ethical behaviour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps a good reason people should not bother worrying about what 'normal' behaviour is and instead aim for ethical behaviour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327232</id>
	<title>Re:as with all statistical methods</title>
	<author>guyminuslife</author>
	<datestamp>1267561800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although there's a long history of attempts to make "social science" conform to the conventions and methodologies of "hard science", there's really no comparing the two. It's not that human psychology is inherently unscientific, or that there's no value in importing scientific concepts into the humanities, it's just that it's fundamentally different, and the way we view social science should be different, too.</p><p>Social science is:<br>a) More complex. Not necessarily more difficult--put a bunch of physics grad students in a undergraduate sociology class and they'll probably all be fine, put a bunch of PhD psychologists in a physics lab and you've got a recipe for disaster--but the level of complexity inherent in just one human brain, not to mention entire societies, is mind-boggling. As such, most attempts to find the Natural Laws of human behavior have been abandoned in favor of heuristics. There are simply too many factors to consider.<br>b) More inferential. There's relatively little that can be "deduced" in social science.<br>c) Less predictable. Sure, your QM prof might go on about quantum uncertainty, but can he tell me how much his stocks will be worth tomorrow?<br>d) Harder to falsify. I think this should be self-evident. Prove me wrong.</p><p>In any case, all science is corruptible (and I'll cite historical examples of science-gone-wrong if you want), but because of the difficulties in marrying the "social" to the "science", social science is *especially* corruptible. This has a lot to do with the agenda of the observer---there's no better standard by which to "prove" some sort of normative point than by attempting to justify it with science. Again, that's not to say that there's no value to it or that we should suspect every study of being tampered with by evil Machiavellian dwarves, but it's also naive to think that think-tanks don't bias their research.</p><p>DISCLAIMER: I know fuck-all about physics, so if you want to respond to this post with, "No, actually, in physics, we do this...", then by all means, enlighten me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although there 's a long history of attempts to make " social science " conform to the conventions and methodologies of " hard science " , there 's really no comparing the two .
It 's not that human psychology is inherently unscientific , or that there 's no value in importing scientific concepts into the humanities , it 's just that it 's fundamentally different , and the way we view social science should be different , too.Social science is : a ) More complex .
Not necessarily more difficult--put a bunch of physics grad students in a undergraduate sociology class and they 'll probably all be fine , put a bunch of PhD psychologists in a physics lab and you 've got a recipe for disaster--but the level of complexity inherent in just one human brain , not to mention entire societies , is mind-boggling .
As such , most attempts to find the Natural Laws of human behavior have been abandoned in favor of heuristics .
There are simply too many factors to consider.b ) More inferential .
There 's relatively little that can be " deduced " in social science.c ) Less predictable .
Sure , your QM prof might go on about quantum uncertainty , but can he tell me how much his stocks will be worth tomorrow ? d ) Harder to falsify .
I think this should be self-evident .
Prove me wrong.In any case , all science is corruptible ( and I 'll cite historical examples of science-gone-wrong if you want ) , but because of the difficulties in marrying the " social " to the " science " , social science is * especially * corruptible .
This has a lot to do with the agenda of the observer---there 's no better standard by which to " prove " some sort of normative point than by attempting to justify it with science .
Again , that 's not to say that there 's no value to it or that we should suspect every study of being tampered with by evil Machiavellian dwarves , but it 's also naive to think that think-tanks do n't bias their research.DISCLAIMER : I know fuck-all about physics , so if you want to respond to this post with , " No , actually , in physics , we do this... " , then by all means , enlighten me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although there's a long history of attempts to make "social science" conform to the conventions and methodologies of "hard science", there's really no comparing the two.
It's not that human psychology is inherently unscientific, or that there's no value in importing scientific concepts into the humanities, it's just that it's fundamentally different, and the way we view social science should be different, too.Social science is:a) More complex.
Not necessarily more difficult--put a bunch of physics grad students in a undergraduate sociology class and they'll probably all be fine, put a bunch of PhD psychologists in a physics lab and you've got a recipe for disaster--but the level of complexity inherent in just one human brain, not to mention entire societies, is mind-boggling.
As such, most attempts to find the Natural Laws of human behavior have been abandoned in favor of heuristics.
There are simply too many factors to consider.b) More inferential.
There's relatively little that can be "deduced" in social science.c) Less predictable.
Sure, your QM prof might go on about quantum uncertainty, but can he tell me how much his stocks will be worth tomorrow?d) Harder to falsify.
I think this should be self-evident.
Prove me wrong.In any case, all science is corruptible (and I'll cite historical examples of science-gone-wrong if you want), but because of the difficulties in marrying the "social" to the "science", social science is *especially* corruptible.
This has a lot to do with the agenda of the observer---there's no better standard by which to "prove" some sort of normative point than by attempting to justify it with science.
Again, that's not to say that there's no value to it or that we should suspect every study of being tampered with by evil Machiavellian dwarves, but it's also naive to think that think-tanks don't bias their research.DISCLAIMER: I know fuck-all about physics, so if you want to respond to this post with, "No, actually, in physics, we do this...", then by all means, enlighten me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322280</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... no.</title>
	<author>gazbo</author>
	<datestamp>1267438920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can you have a double-blind study measuring the effects of a particular type of game?  I think you're setting impossible standards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you have a double-blind study measuring the effects of a particular type of game ?
I think you 're setting impossible standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you have a double-blind study measuring the effects of a particular type of game?
I think you're setting impossible standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327312</id>
	<title>CICO</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1267563060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crap research In, Crap research Out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crap research In , Crap research Out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crap research In, Crap research Out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322742</id>
	<title>Re:So does living in New York</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1267440720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, we're not talking about banning anything. We're talking about research, that's all. And if the lead researcher wants to eventually ban stuff, so what? Regarding the setting of policy, he has just as say as any voter. I'm scared by all the comments here, because I don't want to have anything to do with a group of people who are willing to dismiss <i>scientific</i> results because of their <i>political</i> allegiances. Slashdot should not be a cult. Of all people, we should take research seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , we 're not talking about banning anything .
We 're talking about research , that 's all .
And if the lead researcher wants to eventually ban stuff , so what ?
Regarding the setting of policy , he has just as say as any voter .
I 'm scared by all the comments here , because I do n't want to have anything to do with a group of people who are willing to dismiss scientific results because of their political allegiances .
Slashdot should not be a cult .
Of all people , we should take research seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, we're not talking about banning anything.
We're talking about research, that's all.
And if the lead researcher wants to eventually ban stuff, so what?
Regarding the setting of policy, he has just as say as any voter.
I'm scared by all the comments here, because I don't want to have anything to do with a group of people who are willing to dismiss scientific results because of their political allegiances.
Slashdot should not be a cult.
Of all people, we should take research seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325546</id>
	<title>Re:the /. community</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267456980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mod away - i have karma to burn.</p></div></blockquote><p>Regardless of whatever else they say in the same post, anyone who engages in this kind of self-congratulatory wannabe-martyr bullshit automatically deserves every downmod they get.  And anyone who mods <i>up</i> such a comment proves beyond all possible doubt that they are too stupid to moderate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod away - i have karma to burn.Regardless of whatever else they say in the same post , anyone who engages in this kind of self-congratulatory wannabe-martyr bullshit automatically deserves every downmod they get .
And anyone who mods up such a comment proves beyond all possible doubt that they are too stupid to moderate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod away - i have karma to burn.Regardless of whatever else they say in the same post, anyone who engages in this kind of self-congratulatory wannabe-martyr bullshit automatically deserves every downmod they get.
And anyone who mods up such a comment proves beyond all possible doubt that they are too stupid to moderate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323988</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267446120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>but those who I know personally and play violent games have less empathy for others, are more likely to be self-oriented and generally perform worse in academic pursuits</i></p><p>Leaving aside the issue of relying on anonymous anecdotes - what has this got to do with the claim that it makes the violent?</p><p><i>If I could justify the time and the money I'd love to do a much larger study but that's not my field so I won't.</i></p><p>If you think that anecdotes count as a study at all, you should probably save your money...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but those who I know personally and play violent games have less empathy for others , are more likely to be self-oriented and generally perform worse in academic pursuitsLeaving aside the issue of relying on anonymous anecdotes - what has this got to do with the claim that it makes the violent ? If I could justify the time and the money I 'd love to do a much larger study but that 's not my field so I wo n't.If you think that anecdotes count as a study at all , you should probably save your money.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but those who I know personally and play violent games have less empathy for others, are more likely to be self-oriented and generally perform worse in academic pursuitsLeaving aside the issue of relying on anonymous anecdotes - what has this got to do with the claim that it makes the violent?If I could justify the time and the money I'd love to do a much larger study but that's not my field so I won't.If you think that anecdotes count as a study at all, you should probably save your money...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323270</id>
	<title>Re:Of course video games ruin people...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1267442640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sigh... since bronze is 90\% copper, I doubt if any sane person worried about the adaptation of bronze tools putting the copper industry out of business! We do, however, have documented evidence that people have been complaining about how terrible "today's youth" are for over 3000 years! Apparently selective amnesia is fairly common in our species; people simply cannot accurately remember what is was like to be young themselves. There probably are short-term affects on attitude from playing violent games or watching violent movies, just like there probably are short-term affects on driving judgment after long sessions of playing driving games or watching The Fast and the Furious. That doesn't necessarily translate into long-term affects, or justify banning something. The Bible contains horrific depictions of violence -- homosexual rape, incest, murder, adultery, etc. We have lots of documented evidence of nut jobs using The Bible to justify antisocial and even unlawful behavior. And yet, nobody seriously proposes banning The Bible because it leads to violence... why not? Fairy tales are violent. Nursery rhymes are violent. Even Sesame Street contains depictions of addictive behavior, albeit by a large, blue, furry, googly-eyed monster. Where do you draw the line?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh... since bronze is 90 \ % copper , I doubt if any sane person worried about the adaptation of bronze tools putting the copper industry out of business !
We do , however , have documented evidence that people have been complaining about how terrible " today 's youth " are for over 3000 years !
Apparently selective amnesia is fairly common in our species ; people simply can not accurately remember what is was like to be young themselves .
There probably are short-term affects on attitude from playing violent games or watching violent movies , just like there probably are short-term affects on driving judgment after long sessions of playing driving games or watching The Fast and the Furious .
That does n't necessarily translate into long-term affects , or justify banning something .
The Bible contains horrific depictions of violence -- homosexual rape , incest , murder , adultery , etc .
We have lots of documented evidence of nut jobs using The Bible to justify antisocial and even unlawful behavior .
And yet , nobody seriously proposes banning The Bible because it leads to violence... why not ?
Fairy tales are violent .
Nursery rhymes are violent .
Even Sesame Street contains depictions of addictive behavior , albeit by a large , blue , furry , googly-eyed monster .
Where do you draw the line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh... since bronze is 90\% copper, I doubt if any sane person worried about the adaptation of bronze tools putting the copper industry out of business!
We do, however, have documented evidence that people have been complaining about how terrible "today's youth" are for over 3000 years!
Apparently selective amnesia is fairly common in our species; people simply cannot accurately remember what is was like to be young themselves.
There probably are short-term affects on attitude from playing violent games or watching violent movies, just like there probably are short-term affects on driving judgment after long sessions of playing driving games or watching The Fast and the Furious.
That doesn't necessarily translate into long-term affects, or justify banning something.
The Bible contains horrific depictions of violence -- homosexual rape, incest, murder, adultery, etc.
We have lots of documented evidence of nut jobs using The Bible to justify antisocial and even unlawful behavior.
And yet, nobody seriously proposes banning The Bible because it leads to violence... why not?
Fairy tales are violent.
Nursery rhymes are violent.
Even Sesame Street contains depictions of addictive behavior, albeit by a large, blue, furry, googly-eyed monster.
Where do you draw the line?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327198</id>
	<title>My generation...</title>
	<author>YttriumOxide</author>
	<datestamp>1267561320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah, if video games had effected my generation when we were younger, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, eating pills and listening to repetitive music.</p><p>Oh....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , if video games had effected my generation when we were younger , we 'd all be running around in darkened rooms , eating pills and listening to repetitive music.Oh... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, if video games had effected my generation when we were younger, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, eating pills and listening to repetitive music.Oh....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31489320</id>
	<title>Re:I'll shoot anyone in the face who says that I'm</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1268655120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://xkcd.com/378/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">Guess who's back.</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess who 's back .
[ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess who's back.
[xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323120</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1267441980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and personal bias or agendas are one of the greatest weaknesses of meta-studies like this, along with publication bias.  This is one step above junk science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and personal bias or agendas are one of the greatest weaknesses of meta-studies like this , along with publication bias .
This is one step above junk science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and personal bias or agendas are one of the greatest weaknesses of meta-studies like this, along with publication bias.
This is one step above junk science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31329952</id>
	<title>Re:the /. community</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1267545780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Slashdot readers are to videogame violence as Fox News viewers are to global warming.</p></div><p>Somehow, both video game violence and global warming are related to piracy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot readers are to videogame violence as Fox News viewers are to global warming.Somehow , both video game violence and global warming are related to piracy ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot readers are to videogame violence as Fox News viewers are to global warming.Somehow, both video game violence and global warming are related to piracy ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324454</id>
	<title>Re:the /. community</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1267448700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right, if there was a study showing that playing videogames was responsible for global warming we wouldn't have to RTFA either to know that it was mostly bullshit. The odor is enough; no need to taste it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , if there was a study showing that playing videogames was responsible for global warming we would n't have to RTFA either to know that it was mostly bullshit .
The odor is enough ; no need to taste it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, if there was a study showing that playing videogames was responsible for global warming we wouldn't have to RTFA either to know that it was mostly bullshit.
The odor is enough; no need to taste it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322524</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1267439820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I find so interesting is how people on Slashdot are so willing to attack a study that comes up with an answer they don't like.<br>If you read the link it actually seems very interesting and well balanced.<br>I wonder if any study would ever be good enough for the Slashdot audience.<br>In that respect the Slashdot readership reminds me of creationists.<br>"No study can prove us wrong because we know the truth."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find so interesting is how people on Slashdot are so willing to attack a study that comes up with an answer they do n't like.If you read the link it actually seems very interesting and well balanced.I wonder if any study would ever be good enough for the Slashdot audience.In that respect the Slashdot readership reminds me of creationists .
" No study can prove us wrong because we know the truth .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find so interesting is how people on Slashdot are so willing to attack a study that comes up with an answer they don't like.If you read the link it actually seems very interesting and well balanced.I wonder if any study would ever be good enough for the Slashdot audience.In that respect the Slashdot readership reminds me of creationists.
"No study can prove us wrong because we know the truth.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323720</id>
	<title>Still playing video games? When it's nice outside?</title>
	<author>bpprice</author>
	<datestamp>1267444740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a middle aged guy with teenage kids who (long ago) went to school with the geekiest of them, I find it hard to believe that anyone can maintain an interest in video games once adulthood sets in. I have seen very, very few games that are anything more than elaborate adolescent fantasies, and it's difficult to imagine that as still interesting once you have a life. I sure as hell don't wish to revisit my teens and twenties!

Really, go play outside and get some fresh air. And get off my lawn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a middle aged guy with teenage kids who ( long ago ) went to school with the geekiest of them , I find it hard to believe that anyone can maintain an interest in video games once adulthood sets in .
I have seen very , very few games that are anything more than elaborate adolescent fantasies , and it 's difficult to imagine that as still interesting once you have a life .
I sure as hell do n't wish to revisit my teens and twenties !
Really , go play outside and get some fresh air .
And get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a middle aged guy with teenage kids who (long ago) went to school with the geekiest of them, I find it hard to believe that anyone can maintain an interest in video games once adulthood sets in.
I have seen very, very few games that are anything more than elaborate adolescent fantasies, and it's difficult to imagine that as still interesting once you have a life.
I sure as hell don't wish to revisit my teens and twenties!
Really, go play outside and get some fresh air.
And get off my lawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325656</id>
	<title>Re:The D&amp;D effect</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1267457880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the really funny part is how she twists a few statistics.  Once she interjected some Iraq/Afghanistan veteran murder stats and interjected "[inasmuch] as males commit nearly 90 percent of all murders", she calculated "about 30 to 55 murderers per 100,000 males aged 18 to 35".  Of course, silly her, she didn't do the same stat stat shift on the verteran numbers to show "about 8.6 murders per 100,000 male veterans" and inflates the ~3.9 to ~7.2 adjusted non-veteran to non-adjusted veteran murder rate to "about 10"; meanwhile, it's closer to ~3.45 to ~6.3 adjusted non-veteran to adjusted veteran murder rate which is about 6, actually.  Of course, all the numbers show that 99.9945\% of even the "high" murder non-veteran male aged 18 to 35 group don't murder.  I'd presume her later "single mother" stats are just as fucked up given she seems to phrase things the same.</p><p>In short, instead of making up factor (1; young males) and factor (2; D&amp;D players) and presuming it has to be one of those things, why not, you know, look at the actual group you're talking about to see if you're just outright wrong about what factors are actually involved.  Btw, for all I know, D&amp;D users murder are at a much higher rate than the average population.  But, then, I'm more interested in what percentage of murderers are D&amp;D players vs how many D&amp;D players are not murderers, not some comparison to the general population which tends not to be killers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the really funny part is how she twists a few statistics .
Once she interjected some Iraq/Afghanistan veteran murder stats and interjected " [ inasmuch ] as males commit nearly 90 percent of all murders " , she calculated " about 30 to 55 murderers per 100,000 males aged 18 to 35 " .
Of course , silly her , she did n't do the same stat stat shift on the verteran numbers to show " about 8.6 murders per 100,000 male veterans " and inflates the ~ 3.9 to ~ 7.2 adjusted non-veteran to non-adjusted veteran murder rate to " about 10 " ; meanwhile , it 's closer to ~ 3.45 to ~ 6.3 adjusted non-veteran to adjusted veteran murder rate which is about 6 , actually .
Of course , all the numbers show that 99.9945 \ % of even the " high " murder non-veteran male aged 18 to 35 group do n't murder .
I 'd presume her later " single mother " stats are just as fucked up given she seems to phrase things the same.In short , instead of making up factor ( 1 ; young males ) and factor ( 2 ; D&amp;D players ) and presuming it has to be one of those things , why not , you know , look at the actual group you 're talking about to see if you 're just outright wrong about what factors are actually involved .
Btw , for all I know , D&amp;D users murder are at a much higher rate than the average population .
But , then , I 'm more interested in what percentage of murderers are D&amp;D players vs how many D&amp;D players are not murderers , not some comparison to the general population which tends not to be killers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the really funny part is how she twists a few statistics.
Once she interjected some Iraq/Afghanistan veteran murder stats and interjected "[inasmuch] as males commit nearly 90 percent of all murders", she calculated "about 30 to 55 murderers per 100,000 males aged 18 to 35".
Of course, silly her, she didn't do the same stat stat shift on the verteran numbers to show "about 8.6 murders per 100,000 male veterans" and inflates the ~3.9 to ~7.2 adjusted non-veteran to non-adjusted veteran murder rate to "about 10"; meanwhile, it's closer to ~3.45 to ~6.3 adjusted non-veteran to adjusted veteran murder rate which is about 6, actually.
Of course, all the numbers show that 99.9945\% of even the "high" murder non-veteran male aged 18 to 35 group don't murder.
I'd presume her later "single mother" stats are just as fucked up given she seems to phrase things the same.In short, instead of making up factor (1; young males) and factor (2; D&amp;D players) and presuming it has to be one of those things, why not, you know, look at the actual group you're talking about to see if you're just outright wrong about what factors are actually involved.
Btw, for all I know, D&amp;D users murder are at a much higher rate than the average population.
But, then, I'm more interested in what percentage of murderers are D&amp;D players vs how many D&amp;D players are not murderers, not some comparison to the general population which tends not to be killers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322254</id>
	<title>Re:"not huge effects"</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1267438860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did they rule out that humans by nature are violent animals?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did they rule out that humans by nature are violent animals ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did they rule out that humans by nature are violent animals?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323040</id>
	<title>Re:I'll shoot anyone in the face who says that I'm</title>
	<author>edelbrp</author>
	<datestamp>1267441680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll shoot anyone in the face who says that I'm violent.</p></div><p>I love the fact that this is (currently) modded as "Informative".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll shoot anyone in the face who says that I 'm violent.I love the fact that this is ( currently ) modded as " Informative " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll shoot anyone in the face who says that I'm violent.I love the fact that this is (currently) modded as "Informative".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322178</id>
	<title>Definitive?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're willing to call something definitive, especially something that can be considered subjective, its probably not definitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're willing to call something definitive , especially something that can be considered subjective , its probably not definitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're willing to call something definitive, especially something that can be considered subjective, its probably not definitive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324268</id>
	<title>Bad Kitty</title>
	<author>gearloos</author>
	<datestamp>1267447500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess this mean no more Hello Kitty for me!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess this mean no more Hello Kitty for me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess this mean no more Hello Kitty for me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322164</id>
	<title>I'll shoot anyone in the face who says that I'm vi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll shoot anyone in the face who says that I'm violent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll shoot anyone in the face who says that I 'm violent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll shoot anyone in the face who says that I'm violent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323130</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267442040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And even then you've only proven correlation. The only "definitive" study you could get would be to raise two groups of kids in completely controlled settings where the only difference is that one group is told to play lots of violent video games and the other group gets playground time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And even then you 've only proven correlation .
The only " definitive " study you could get would be to raise two groups of kids in completely controlled settings where the only difference is that one group is told to play lots of violent video games and the other group gets playground time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And even then you've only proven correlation.
The only "definitive" study you could get would be to raise two groups of kids in completely controlled settings where the only difference is that one group is told to play lots of violent video games and the other group gets playground time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322354</id>
	<title>Iowa state talking about an Iowa state study</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267439160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really the most unbiased of articles unless there's a history of Iowa State University ripping into their professors articles online.</p><p>Might be true, might be false. I'll wait for an unbiased article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really the most unbiased of articles unless there 's a history of Iowa State University ripping into their professors articles online.Might be true , might be false .
I 'll wait for an unbiased article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really the most unbiased of articles unless there's a history of Iowa State University ripping into their professors articles online.Might be true, might be false.
I'll wait for an unbiased article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325290</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... no.</title>
	<author>meheler</author>
	<datestamp>1267454520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That reminds me of one study I had read which measured the excitement levels of people while playing violent video games as compared to while watching a violent movie. My thought was, where was the control? I get violent just playing tetris. Hell, I leave a session playing Grand Theft Auto calm and relaxed. It's the games like Galaxy Wars that really get my blood boiling and leave me wanting to throw my entertainment system out the window at the end of the day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That reminds me of one study I had read which measured the excitement levels of people while playing violent video games as compared to while watching a violent movie .
My thought was , where was the control ?
I get violent just playing tetris .
Hell , I leave a session playing Grand Theft Auto calm and relaxed .
It 's the games like Galaxy Wars that really get my blood boiling and leave me wanting to throw my entertainment system out the window at the end of the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That reminds me of one study I had read which measured the excitement levels of people while playing violent video games as compared to while watching a violent movie.
My thought was, where was the control?
I get violent just playing tetris.
Hell, I leave a session playing Grand Theft Auto calm and relaxed.
It's the games like Galaxy Wars that really get my blood boiling and leave me wanting to throw my entertainment system out the window at the end of the day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322590</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1267440120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm waiting for the meta study that shows that studies on video games leading to anger make video gamers angry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting for the meta study that shows that studies on video games leading to anger make video gamers angry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting for the meta study that shows that studies on video games leading to anger make video gamers angry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324278</id>
	<title>Correlation vs causation</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1267447560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't help but wonder if the thing these studies are picking up on is that violent people are drawn to violent games, rather than that violent games make violent people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help but wonder if the thing these studies are picking up on is that violent people are drawn to violent games , rather than that violent games make violent people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help but wonder if the thing these studies are picking up on is that violent people are drawn to violent games, rather than that violent games make violent people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323074</id>
	<title>Violence begets violence.</title>
	<author>PrototypeNM1</author>
	<datestamp>1267441800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Videogames are not an exception, nor are they exceptional to the fact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Videogames are not an exception , nor are they exceptional to the fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Videogames are not an exception, nor are they exceptional to the fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322378</id>
	<title>When I was kid...</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1267439220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Three Stooges and Batman on TV was considered dangerous for kids.  You know, poking out eyes and screaming, "Baaaaatmaaaaan!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Three Stooges and Batman on TV was considered dangerous for kids .
You know , poking out eyes and screaming , " Baaaaatmaaaaan !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Three Stooges and Batman on TV was considered dangerous for kids.
You know, poking out eyes and screaming, "Baaaaatmaaaaan!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323060</id>
	<title>Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1267441740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many times to we have to point out that correlation does not prove causation? Have they proven that "violent video games make more aggressive, less caring kids", or that "more aggressive, less caring kids make better violent video game players"? Also, a change in attitudes measured immediately after playing a game does not prove a long-term affect; my daughter acts very differently after viewing the movie "Lilo and Stitch" too... does this mean Disney should be banned?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times to we have to point out that correlation does not prove causation ?
Have they proven that " violent video games make more aggressive , less caring kids " , or that " more aggressive , less caring kids make better violent video game players " ?
Also , a change in attitudes measured immediately after playing a game does not prove a long-term affect ; my daughter acts very differently after viewing the movie " Lilo and Stitch " too... does this mean Disney should be banned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times to we have to point out that correlation does not prove causation?
Have they proven that "violent video games make more aggressive, less caring kids", or that "more aggressive, less caring kids make better violent video game players"?
Also, a change in attitudes measured immediately after playing a game does not prove a long-term affect; my daughter acts very differently after viewing the movie "Lilo and Stitch" too... does this mean Disney should be banned?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322704</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>pruss</author>
	<datestamp>1267440600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know that smoking causes lung cancer.  But for ethical reasons, we can't do randomized studies on humans.</p><p>So, what does one do without randomized studies?  Well, one can do longitudinal studies: see what progression over time there is and observe what happens when the variable studied changes over time (e.g., people quitting playing violent games, or starting to play violent games).  And we can look at correlations while controlling for tons of variables.</p><p>Can one <i>prove</i> that one didn't miss some relevant variable to be controlled?  Certainly not.  But once one has done the longitudinal studies, once one has looked at correlations while controlling for all the variables one can think of, at that point the reasonable person may says: "Probably, we have causation here.  It's not proved, but it's very probable."  And probability is all we really have in science, and if we weren't willing to act on probabilities, we'd almost never do anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that smoking causes lung cancer .
But for ethical reasons , we ca n't do randomized studies on humans.So , what does one do without randomized studies ?
Well , one can do longitudinal studies : see what progression over time there is and observe what happens when the variable studied changes over time ( e.g. , people quitting playing violent games , or starting to play violent games ) .
And we can look at correlations while controlling for tons of variables.Can one prove that one did n't miss some relevant variable to be controlled ?
Certainly not .
But once one has done the longitudinal studies , once one has looked at correlations while controlling for all the variables one can think of , at that point the reasonable person may says : " Probably , we have causation here .
It 's not proved , but it 's very probable .
" And probability is all we really have in science , and if we were n't willing to act on probabilities , we 'd almost never do anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that smoking causes lung cancer.
But for ethical reasons, we can't do randomized studies on humans.So, what does one do without randomized studies?
Well, one can do longitudinal studies: see what progression over time there is and observe what happens when the variable studied changes over time (e.g., people quitting playing violent games, or starting to play violent games).
And we can look at correlations while controlling for tons of variables.Can one prove that one didn't miss some relevant variable to be controlled?
Certainly not.
But once one has done the longitudinal studies, once one has looked at correlations while controlling for all the variables one can think of, at that point the reasonable person may says: "Probably, we have causation here.
It's not proved, but it's very probable.
"  And probability is all we really have in science, and if we weren't willing to act on probabilities, we'd almost never do anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31372894</id>
	<title>Re:the /. community</title>
	<author>theghost</author>
	<datestamp>1267813920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect that researchers on both sides of the fence would tell you that "violent" is not a binary state.</p><p>It's not a matter of flipping a switch from nonviolent to violent. If all your genetics and upbringing have resulted in a fairly nonviolent person, Mortal Kombat isn't going to turn you into a mass murderer.</p><p>On the other hand it's really pretty ridiculous to say that games have no effect whatsoever. Down that path lies the complete devaluation of all art and entertainment as a path to learning.</p><p>The real question is how much of an effect they have, and that's why people should keep an open mind when looking at these studies instead of dismissing them out of hand while at the same time, remaining skeptical of the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" alarmists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that researchers on both sides of the fence would tell you that " violent " is not a binary state.It 's not a matter of flipping a switch from nonviolent to violent .
If all your genetics and upbringing have resulted in a fairly nonviolent person , Mortal Kombat is n't going to turn you into a mass murderer.On the other hand it 's really pretty ridiculous to say that games have no effect whatsoever .
Down that path lies the complete devaluation of all art and entertainment as a path to learning.The real question is how much of an effect they have , and that 's why people should keep an open mind when looking at these studies instead of dismissing them out of hand while at the same time , remaining skeptical of the " THINK OF THE CHILDREN " alarmists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that researchers on both sides of the fence would tell you that "violent" is not a binary state.It's not a matter of flipping a switch from nonviolent to violent.
If all your genetics and upbringing have resulted in a fairly nonviolent person, Mortal Kombat isn't going to turn you into a mass murderer.On the other hand it's really pretty ridiculous to say that games have no effect whatsoever.
Down that path lies the complete devaluation of all art and entertainment as a path to learning.The real question is how much of an effect they have, and that's why people should keep an open mind when looking at these studies instead of dismissing them out of hand while at the same time, remaining skeptical of the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" alarmists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31326020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324486</id>
	<title>It MUST be Video Games...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267448880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all they couldn't POSSIBLY be influenced in ANY way by television, music, print/electronic media, their family and friends, their socioeconomic status or any combination of the above.</p><p>Nope! Good ole 'logic' states that if A happened before B then A caused B. So that's why the sun rising caused me to lose my job! DAMN YOU SOL! I BLOCK YOU FROM HAVING YOUR IRRADIANT INFLUENCE UPON ME HENCEFORTH!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all they could n't POSSIBLY be influenced in ANY way by television , music , print/electronic media , their family and friends , their socioeconomic status or any combination of the above.Nope !
Good ole 'logic ' states that if A happened before B then A caused B. So that 's why the sun rising caused me to lose my job !
DAMN YOU SOL !
I BLOCK YOU FROM HAVING YOUR IRRADIANT INFLUENCE UPON ME HENCEFORTH ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all they couldn't POSSIBLY be influenced in ANY way by television, music, print/electronic media, their family and friends, their socioeconomic status or any combination of the above.Nope!
Good ole 'logic' states that if A happened before B then A caused B. So that's why the sun rising caused me to lose my job!
DAMN YOU SOL!
I BLOCK YOU FROM HAVING YOUR IRRADIANT INFLUENCE UPON ME HENCEFORTH!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322464</id>
	<title>Re:"not huge effects"</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1267439640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should be able to find his methods in the <a href="http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/10ASISBSRS.pdf" title="iastate.edu">preprint</a> [iastate.edu] of this paper on his university website.  I haven't had a chance to read it so I have nothing more to add.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should be able to find his methods in the preprint [ iastate.edu ] of this paper on his university website .
I have n't had a chance to read it so I have nothing more to add .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should be able to find his methods in the preprint [iastate.edu] of this paper on his university website.
I haven't had a chance to read it so I have nothing more to add.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322304</id>
	<title>videogame violence studies make researchers stupid</title>
	<author>buback</author>
	<datestamp>1267438980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can conclusively prove that researching the effects of violent video games on children make the researchers stupider.<br>My evidence? <a href="http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2010/mar/vvgeffects" title="iastate.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2010/mar/vvgeffects</a> [iastate.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can conclusively prove that researching the effects of violent video games on children make the researchers stupider.My evidence ?
http : //www.news.iastate.edu/news/2010/mar/vvgeffects [ iastate.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can conclusively prove that researching the effects of violent video games on children make the researchers stupider.My evidence?
http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2010/mar/vvgeffects [iastate.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323840</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1267445400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best example of this that I've seen was a study that showed a strong link between reading age and shoe size.  If you plot shoe size against reading age, you see that a larger shoe size almost always implies a higher reading age in children.  </p><p>
If you add a third axis, showing age, you see how misleading correlations can be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best example of this that I 've seen was a study that showed a strong link between reading age and shoe size .
If you plot shoe size against reading age , you see that a larger shoe size almost always implies a higher reading age in children .
If you add a third axis , showing age , you see how misleading correlations can be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best example of this that I've seen was a study that showed a strong link between reading age and shoe size.
If you plot shoe size against reading age, you see that a larger shoe size almost always implies a higher reading age in children.
If you add a third axis, showing age, you see how misleading correlations can be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31332332</id>
	<title>Re:As always...</title>
	<author>dosilegecko</author>
	<datestamp>1267555740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't blame the parents! They can't be bothered with actually raising their own kids, its WAY too much work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't blame the parents !
They ca n't be bothered with actually raising their own kids , its WAY too much work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't blame the parents!
They can't be bothered with actually raising their own kids, its WAY too much work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325710</id>
	<title>I disagree</title>
	<author>Stepnsteph</author>
	<datestamp>1267458240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a.) Long time gamer here.  Been gaming since the Atari 2600.<br>b.) Psychology major. Undergrad. 3.7x GPA if, for some odd reason, that matters to anyone who's reading.</p><p>I'm going to be blunt and say that studies such as this one are biased.  I've considered doing research in this area myself to counter this sort of nonsense.</p><p>Personally I am of the opinion that a major part of the bias comes from the isolated nature of these studies.  For example, one need only to watch my brother as he watches sports in order to draw the conclusion that watching sports increases violent thoughts and/or behavior.  That's not because he attacks anyone - just as any well adjusted person who's playing a game isn't going to attack someone - but because his behavior (and dare I suggest some of his thoughts) is pretty obvious.  He yells at the screen, he jumps up in anger, he clenches his fists, his face turns red.. yeah, he's a major sports fan.</p><p>Does this mean that sports increases violent behavior?  Sure it does.  Does that actually mean anything?  No, of course not.  To suggest that watching sports makes him violent is to play a game of semantics.  It's technically correct, but to generalize that in any way is rather stretching it.  This kind of behavior is perfectly normal (maybe really strange to some of us, but perfectly normal).  This does not in any way mean that my brother is going to attack someone, or go out and shoot a fan of the opposing team.</p><p>As far as that's concerned, we have plenty of examples of sports fans causing public damage or attacking other people.  It happens, just as it happens with people who play video games, or watches movies, or yodels, or whatever.</p><p>I'm not saying that this is done deliberately for the sake of an agenda, though that may be true in some cases.  This meta study, however, is flawed, as any number of other posters here have noticed and mentioned.</p><p>This sort of nonsense is disheartening for me to see.  This clearly isn't good science, and calling it any form of "definitive" is just arrogant and ignorant.</p><p>Done venting.  Thanks for reading.  I'm pretty tired so I'm not sure if this made as much sense as I kinda hope that it does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a .
) Long time gamer here .
Been gaming since the Atari 2600.b .
) Psychology major .
Undergrad. 3.7x GPA if , for some odd reason , that matters to anyone who 's reading.I 'm going to be blunt and say that studies such as this one are biased .
I 've considered doing research in this area myself to counter this sort of nonsense.Personally I am of the opinion that a major part of the bias comes from the isolated nature of these studies .
For example , one need only to watch my brother as he watches sports in order to draw the conclusion that watching sports increases violent thoughts and/or behavior .
That 's not because he attacks anyone - just as any well adjusted person who 's playing a game is n't going to attack someone - but because his behavior ( and dare I suggest some of his thoughts ) is pretty obvious .
He yells at the screen , he jumps up in anger , he clenches his fists , his face turns red.. yeah , he 's a major sports fan.Does this mean that sports increases violent behavior ?
Sure it does .
Does that actually mean anything ?
No , of course not .
To suggest that watching sports makes him violent is to play a game of semantics .
It 's technically correct , but to generalize that in any way is rather stretching it .
This kind of behavior is perfectly normal ( maybe really strange to some of us , but perfectly normal ) .
This does not in any way mean that my brother is going to attack someone , or go out and shoot a fan of the opposing team.As far as that 's concerned , we have plenty of examples of sports fans causing public damage or attacking other people .
It happens , just as it happens with people who play video games , or watches movies , or yodels , or whatever.I 'm not saying that this is done deliberately for the sake of an agenda , though that may be true in some cases .
This meta study , however , is flawed , as any number of other posters here have noticed and mentioned.This sort of nonsense is disheartening for me to see .
This clearly is n't good science , and calling it any form of " definitive " is just arrogant and ignorant.Done venting .
Thanks for reading .
I 'm pretty tired so I 'm not sure if this made as much sense as I kinda hope that it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a.
) Long time gamer here.
Been gaming since the Atari 2600.b.
) Psychology major.
Undergrad. 3.7x GPA if, for some odd reason, that matters to anyone who's reading.I'm going to be blunt and say that studies such as this one are biased.
I've considered doing research in this area myself to counter this sort of nonsense.Personally I am of the opinion that a major part of the bias comes from the isolated nature of these studies.
For example, one need only to watch my brother as he watches sports in order to draw the conclusion that watching sports increases violent thoughts and/or behavior.
That's not because he attacks anyone - just as any well adjusted person who's playing a game isn't going to attack someone - but because his behavior (and dare I suggest some of his thoughts) is pretty obvious.
He yells at the screen, he jumps up in anger, he clenches his fists, his face turns red.. yeah, he's a major sports fan.Does this mean that sports increases violent behavior?
Sure it does.
Does that actually mean anything?
No, of course not.
To suggest that watching sports makes him violent is to play a game of semantics.
It's technically correct, but to generalize that in any way is rather stretching it.
This kind of behavior is perfectly normal (maybe really strange to some of us, but perfectly normal).
This does not in any way mean that my brother is going to attack someone, or go out and shoot a fan of the opposing team.As far as that's concerned, we have plenty of examples of sports fans causing public damage or attacking other people.
It happens, just as it happens with people who play video games, or watches movies, or yodels, or whatever.I'm not saying that this is done deliberately for the sake of an agenda, though that may be true in some cases.
This meta study, however, is flawed, as any number of other posters here have noticed and mentioned.This sort of nonsense is disheartening for me to see.
This clearly isn't good science, and calling it any form of "definitive" is just arrogant and ignorant.Done venting.
Thanks for reading.
I'm pretty tired so I'm not sure if this made as much sense as I kinda hope that it does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322488</id>
	<title>Fucking Aye!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267439700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do evolution, global warming and the link between video games and violence all have in common?</p><p>All three are "conclusively" proven to people pushing an agenda.</p><p>And all three are complete bullshit to anyone with half a brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do evolution , global warming and the link between video games and violence all have in common ? All three are " conclusively " proven to people pushing an agenda.And all three are complete bullshit to anyone with half a brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do evolution, global warming and the link between video games and violence all have in common?All three are "conclusively" proven to people pushing an agenda.And all three are complete bullshit to anyone with half a brain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322194</id>
	<title>I will not be satisfied until studiers are studied</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1267438680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can we prove that these studies are valid, without a good valid study demonstrating that it's not the categorical violence inherent in the research study that is causing these results to suggest that the kids themselves are more violent as a result of these violent video games.</p><p>Nice use of the word "Attack" by the way.  As a violent video game player, I totally had a mental flash of a stack of papers beating the s^\%&amp;\% out of a game console cartridge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can we prove that these studies are valid , without a good valid study demonstrating that it 's not the categorical violence inherent in the research study that is causing these results to suggest that the kids themselves are more violent as a result of these violent video games.Nice use of the word " Attack " by the way .
As a violent video game player , I totally had a mental flash of a stack of papers beating the s ^ \ % &amp; \ % out of a game console cartridge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can we prove that these studies are valid, without a good valid study demonstrating that it's not the categorical violence inherent in the research study that is causing these results to suggest that the kids themselves are more violent as a result of these violent video games.Nice use of the word "Attack" by the way.
As a violent video game player, I totally had a mental flash of a stack of papers beating the s^\%&amp;\% out of a game console cartridge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322474</id>
	<title>as with all statistical methods</title>
	<author>darkmalice</author>
	<datestamp>1267439640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>we use the reports and findings that benefit only what we want the result to be.

as Pojut quoted we need to release the inner monster sometimes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>we use the reports and findings that benefit only what we want the result to be .
as Pojut quoted we need to release the inner monster sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we use the reports and findings that benefit only what we want the result to be.
as Pojut quoted we need to release the inner monster sometimes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322180</id>
	<title>Same sh*t, different decade.</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1267438560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of the TV version of this anti-violence crusade in the 80s and 90s.</p><p>One thing that always stuck out in my mind about that last round was how the talking<br>heads of that movement would take things out of context and then whine about them. I<br>knew this because I watched the stuff they were whining about. They would show you a<br>little 15 or 30 second bit and then criticize it and leave out ANY of the context.</p><p>People can abuse information in any way that suits them.</p><p>Disraeli probably didn't even say it first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of the TV version of this anti-violence crusade in the 80s and 90s.One thing that always stuck out in my mind about that last round was how the talkingheads of that movement would take things out of context and then whine about them .
Iknew this because I watched the stuff they were whining about .
They would show you alittle 15 or 30 second bit and then criticize it and leave out ANY of the context.People can abuse information in any way that suits them.Disraeli probably did n't even say it first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of the TV version of this anti-violence crusade in the 80s and 90s.One thing that always stuck out in my mind about that last round was how the talkingheads of that movement would take things out of context and then whine about them.
Iknew this because I watched the stuff they were whining about.
They would show you alittle 15 or 30 second bit and then criticize it and leave out ANY of the context.People can abuse information in any way that suits them.Disraeli probably didn't even say it first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323194</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>wintercolby</author>
	<datestamp>1267442340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, here's a very well respected source reporting on how <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new\_study\_reveals\_most\_children" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">sociopathic, narcissistic behaviour is present in children, regardless of video games</a> [theonion.com]  A more serious explanation about <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468" title="npr.org" rel="nofollow">the teen brain</a> [npr.org] was on NPR this morning.<br> <br>

Bottom line, it can be proved that children, like cats (and Terry Pratchett elves) are cute and cudly but actually quite vile, evil little creatures.
<br> <br>
And don't you suggest my kids are sociopaths because of video games, neither of them is even 5 yet.  They haven't even learned about video games yet, but they are just starting to learn empathy.  In fact anyone who looks at their kids with any kind of honest appraisal should tell you that they actually have to be conditioned NOT to be sociopathic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , here 's a very well respected source reporting on how sociopathic , narcissistic behaviour is present in children , regardless of video games [ theonion.com ] A more serious explanation about the teen brain [ npr.org ] was on NPR this morning .
Bottom line , it can be proved that children , like cats ( and Terry Pratchett elves ) are cute and cudly but actually quite vile , evil little creatures .
And do n't you suggest my kids are sociopaths because of video games , neither of them is even 5 yet .
They have n't even learned about video games yet , but they are just starting to learn empathy .
In fact anyone who looks at their kids with any kind of honest appraisal should tell you that they actually have to be conditioned NOT to be sociopathic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, here's a very well respected source reporting on how sociopathic, narcissistic behaviour is present in children, regardless of video games [theonion.com]  A more serious explanation about the teen brain [npr.org] was on NPR this morning.
Bottom line, it can be proved that children, like cats (and Terry Pratchett elves) are cute and cudly but actually quite vile, evil little creatures.
And don't you suggest my kids are sociopaths because of video games, neither of them is even 5 yet.
They haven't even learned about video games yet, but they are just starting to learn empathy.
In fact anyone who looks at their kids with any kind of honest appraisal should tell you that they actually have to be conditioned NOT to be sociopathic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322498</id>
	<title>Absolutely true!</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1267439760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you have to use the right definitions.</p><p>"Conclusive":  Of, relating to, or being a CONCLUSION.<br>"Conclusion":  (2)  The last part of something.</p><p>So they proved it conclusively, by writing it up as the last step in performing the study.</p><p>Doesn't mean they proved it irrefutably.  Just that they concluded their study with a possibly-flawed statement.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you have to use the right definitions .
" Conclusive " : Of , relating to , or being a CONCLUSION .
" Conclusion " : ( 2 ) The last part of something.So they proved it conclusively , by writing it up as the last step in performing the study.Does n't mean they proved it irrefutably .
Just that they concluded their study with a possibly-flawed statement .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you have to use the right definitions.
"Conclusive":  Of, relating to, or being a CONCLUSION.
"Conclusion":  (2)  The last part of something.So they proved it conclusively, by writing it up as the last step in performing the study.Doesn't mean they proved it irrefutably.
Just that they concluded their study with a possibly-flawed statement.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323010</id>
	<title>Re:as with all statistical methods</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1267441620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must really hate science if you think that all statistical studies are simply confirmations of research prejudices. My background is in physics, and I can tell you that statistical methods are absolutely key to pretty much all the empirical work we do. I'm reading this thread and asking myself: Why does everyone on Slashdot hate science today? Because the result doesn't fit our preconceptions? I'll tell you something my QM prof once told me: Reality doesn't give a fuck about your preconceptions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must really hate science if you think that all statistical studies are simply confirmations of research prejudices .
My background is in physics , and I can tell you that statistical methods are absolutely key to pretty much all the empirical work we do .
I 'm reading this thread and asking myself : Why does everyone on Slashdot hate science today ?
Because the result does n't fit our preconceptions ?
I 'll tell you something my QM prof once told me : Reality does n't give a fuck about your preconceptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must really hate science if you think that all statistical studies are simply confirmations of research prejudices.
My background is in physics, and I can tell you that statistical methods are absolutely key to pretty much all the empirical work we do.
I'm reading this thread and asking myself: Why does everyone on Slashdot hate science today?
Because the result doesn't fit our preconceptions?
I'll tell you something my QM prof once told me: Reality doesn't give a fuck about your preconceptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322988</id>
	<title>The Jem Haddar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267441500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shall not stand while you claim this rubbish!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shall not stand while you claim this rubbish !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shall not stand while you claim this rubbish!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31329564</id>
	<title>Let's make another study with an agenda</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1267543980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's make a study conclusively proving that football tends to increase the players' long term tendency toward aggressive and antisocial behavior (like stuffing classmates into lockers, for instance), decreases empathy, and correlates with lower lifetime income. Heck, you might not even have to fudge the data...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's make a study conclusively proving that football tends to increase the players ' long term tendency toward aggressive and antisocial behavior ( like stuffing classmates into lockers , for instance ) , decreases empathy , and correlates with lower lifetime income .
Heck , you might not even have to fudge the data.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's make a study conclusively proving that football tends to increase the players' long term tendency toward aggressive and antisocial behavior (like stuffing classmates into lockers, for instance), decreases empathy, and correlates with lower lifetime income.
Heck, you might not even have to fudge the data...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323702</id>
	<title>Re:the /. community</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1267444680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really.  Considering there are actually statistics showing violent crimes going down since video games have become popular, their conclusions don't make sense.  Also, there are obvious flaws with their methodology.<br> <br>Fox News wants you to believe that human actions has no effect on the environment.  Fairly different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
Considering there are actually statistics showing violent crimes going down since video games have become popular , their conclusions do n't make sense .
Also , there are obvious flaws with their methodology .
Fox News wants you to believe that human actions has no effect on the environment .
Fairly different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
Considering there are actually statistics showing violent crimes going down since video games have become popular, their conclusions don't make sense.
Also, there are obvious flaws with their methodology.
Fox News wants you to believe that human actions has no effect on the environment.
Fairly different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322312</id>
	<title>Re:"not huge effects"</title>
	<author>Psmylie</author>
	<datestamp>1267439040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're questioning him. Don't question him. He said it himself, it's definitive. We have to take his word on it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're questioning him .
Do n't question him .
He said it himself , it 's definitive .
We have to take his word on it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're questioning him.
Don't question him.
He said it himself, it's definitive.
We have to take his word on it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31332522</id>
	<title>WHO CARES?</title>
	<author>dosilegecko</author>
	<datestamp>1267556220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real question is: Does anyone give a shit? This is so old and tired. I'm going to go slam some shaped blocks onto poor other shaped blocks and make lines of blocks explode, rewarding me with points.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is : Does anyone give a shit ?
This is so old and tired .
I 'm going to go slam some shaped blocks onto poor other shaped blocks and make lines of blocks explode , rewarding me with points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is: Does anyone give a shit?
This is so old and tired.
I'm going to go slam some shaped blocks onto poor other shaped blocks and make lines of blocks explode, rewarding me with points.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324584</id>
	<title>Some Aggressive Competition is a Good Thing</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1267449300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We live in a hyper-competitive world where the strong survive and the weak are defeated. If playing video games instills a more competitive or aggressive spirit then perhaps that is a good thing. We <i>should</i> be teaching our children about the real world where there are winners and losers and competition is the rule of the day instead of coddling them and giving everyone awards for "participation". Instead we are too worried about "self-esteem" and ruffling peoples' feathers whereas the Chinese and Indians have no such qualms. Indeed, many of our children today are going to lose out to aggressive, smart and hungry kids growing up tough in China and India if we sit on our hands and do nothing to change the situation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We live in a hyper-competitive world where the strong survive and the weak are defeated .
If playing video games instills a more competitive or aggressive spirit then perhaps that is a good thing .
We should be teaching our children about the real world where there are winners and losers and competition is the rule of the day instead of coddling them and giving everyone awards for " participation " .
Instead we are too worried about " self-esteem " and ruffling peoples ' feathers whereas the Chinese and Indians have no such qualms .
Indeed , many of our children today are going to lose out to aggressive , smart and hungry kids growing up tough in China and India if we sit on our hands and do nothing to change the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We live in a hyper-competitive world where the strong survive and the weak are defeated.
If playing video games instills a more competitive or aggressive spirit then perhaps that is a good thing.
We should be teaching our children about the real world where there are winners and losers and competition is the rule of the day instead of coddling them and giving everyone awards for "participation".
Instead we are too worried about "self-esteem" and ruffling peoples' feathers whereas the Chinese and Indians have no such qualms.
Indeed, many of our children today are going to lose out to aggressive, smart and hungry kids growing up tough in China and India if we sit on our hands and do nothing to change the situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322562</id>
	<title>Violent videogames do not cause violence - BUT -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267440060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Violent videogames do not in of themselves cause violence - BUT - works of fiction (or exaggerated works of non-fiction), including videogames, with characters that exhibit extreme behavior, can warp our perceptions of what "normal" behavior is, giving us license to act in ways we'd otherwise consider extreme. <br>
<br>
"Yeah, I'm a gangster and I've killed a few people but it's not like I'm Scarface or anything."
<br>
"Yeah, I'm not the best manager in the world, and I goof around a lot, but it's not like I'm Michael Scott or anything."
<br>
"Yeah, I've been known to give a perp a beatdown after he's cuffed, but it's not like I'm Jack Bauer or anything."
<br>
And so on and so on...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Violent videogames do not in of themselves cause violence - BUT - works of fiction ( or exaggerated works of non-fiction ) , including videogames , with characters that exhibit extreme behavior , can warp our perceptions of what " normal " behavior is , giving us license to act in ways we 'd otherwise consider extreme .
" Yeah , I 'm a gangster and I 've killed a few people but it 's not like I 'm Scarface or anything .
" " Yeah , I 'm not the best manager in the world , and I goof around a lot , but it 's not like I 'm Michael Scott or anything .
" " Yeah , I 've been known to give a perp a beatdown after he 's cuffed , but it 's not like I 'm Jack Bauer or anything .
" And so on and so on.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Violent videogames do not in of themselves cause violence - BUT - works of fiction (or exaggerated works of non-fiction), including videogames, with characters that exhibit extreme behavior, can warp our perceptions of what "normal" behavior is, giving us license to act in ways we'd otherwise consider extreme.
"Yeah, I'm a gangster and I've killed a few people but it's not like I'm Scarface or anything.
"

"Yeah, I'm not the best manager in the world, and I goof around a lot, but it's not like I'm Michael Scott or anything.
"

"Yeah, I've been known to give a perp a beatdown after he's cuffed, but it's not like I'm Jack Bauer or anything.
"

And so on and so on...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323342</id>
	<title>Not even going to bother RTFA</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1267443000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science is where you disprove the old theory (defaults to "nothing happens"), within a 95\% probability.  Then you propose a new idea that fits with the data.  You can't prove a hypothesis, so I personally wouldn't bother reading an article by someone who thinks they did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is where you disprove the old theory ( defaults to " nothing happens " ) , within a 95 \ % probability .
Then you propose a new idea that fits with the data .
You ca n't prove a hypothesis , so I personally would n't bother reading an article by someone who thinks they did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science is where you disprove the old theory (defaults to "nothing happens"), within a 95\% probability.
Then you propose a new idea that fits with the data.
You can't prove a hypothesis, so I personally wouldn't bother reading an article by someone who thinks they did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31333360</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267559400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the majority of Americans claim to have an affililiation with one type of religious orginization or another, why has there never been a study on how this promotes aggresive tendencies in children? It would seem to me that this would be a much more common factor in all of the violent children we see these days. At one point or another they would have been exposed to the doctrines present in these mind warping institutions? Whne they found themselves unable to be sympathetic and calm when dealing with a frustrating situation, could this not have made them feel like an outsider and contributed to their aggression? Just wondering... Pushin' for Jesus</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the majority of Americans claim to have an affililiation with one type of religious orginization or another , why has there never been a study on how this promotes aggresive tendencies in children ?
It would seem to me that this would be a much more common factor in all of the violent children we see these days .
At one point or another they would have been exposed to the doctrines present in these mind warping institutions ?
Whne they found themselves unable to be sympathetic and calm when dealing with a frustrating situation , could this not have made them feel like an outsider and contributed to their aggression ?
Just wondering... Pushin ' for Jesus</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the majority of Americans claim to have an affililiation with one type of religious orginization or another, why has there never been a study on how this promotes aggresive tendencies in children?
It would seem to me that this would be a much more common factor in all of the violent children we see these days.
At one point or another they would have been exposed to the doctrines present in these mind warping institutions?
Whne they found themselves unable to be sympathetic and calm when dealing with a frustrating situation, could this not have made them feel like an outsider and contributed to their aggression?
Just wondering... Pushin' for Jesus</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322336</id>
	<title>Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267439100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, this is always trotted out, but I think it's applicable here.  How can you demonstrate causation through a meta-analysis?  Without randomizing your subjects, and subjecting them to different treatments you can't prove that any given effect is caused by that treatment and not a 3rd variable.</p><p>Also, how big is this effect compared to other things we tolerate as a society?  Watching sports for instance causes an increase in testosterone, and testosterone is linked to aggressive behavior.  We need this kind of context in order to prioritize how we treat these issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , this is always trotted out , but I think it 's applicable here .
How can you demonstrate causation through a meta-analysis ?
Without randomizing your subjects , and subjecting them to different treatments you ca n't prove that any given effect is caused by that treatment and not a 3rd variable.Also , how big is this effect compared to other things we tolerate as a society ?
Watching sports for instance causes an increase in testosterone , and testosterone is linked to aggressive behavior .
We need this kind of context in order to prioritize how we treat these issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, this is always trotted out, but I think it's applicable here.
How can you demonstrate causation through a meta-analysis?
Without randomizing your subjects, and subjecting them to different treatments you can't prove that any given effect is caused by that treatment and not a 3rd variable.Also, how big is this effect compared to other things we tolerate as a society?
Watching sports for instance causes an increase in testosterone, and testosterone is linked to aggressive behavior.
We need this kind of context in order to prioritize how we treat these issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322824</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Dutch Gun</author>
	<datestamp>1267441020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  I would have had much more respect for the study if it claimed to have established a strong correlation.  But using the word "conclusive" and "proven" only shows that psychologists use an entirely different standard of "proof" than other scientists.</p><p>Here's the meatiest part of the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The team used meta-analytic procedures -- the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous, related literature -- to test the effects of violent video game play on the behaviors, thoughts and feelings of the individuals, ranging from elementary school-aged children to college undergraduates.</p><p>The research also included new longitudinal data which provided further confirmation that playing violent video games is a causal risk factor for long-term harmful outcomes.</p> </div><p>We're given a pretty thin slice of actual facts here.  I see nothing of hard analysis or actual numbers anywhere in the article.  They only talk about methods.  They used their own study's data.  "Meta-analysis" is just studying other published studies and incorporating that into your analysis.  "Longitudinal data" simple means tracking data across an additional dimension, undoubtedly time.  This means nothing more than "we looked at subjects over a period of time".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Anderson says the new study may be his last meta-analysis on violent video games because of its definitive findings.</p></div><p>Well, it's not all bad news, I guess.  Of course, the flip side is this means he would never have the opportunity to *disprove* his earlier conclusions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I would have had much more respect for the study if it claimed to have established a strong correlation .
But using the word " conclusive " and " proven " only shows that psychologists use an entirely different standard of " proof " than other scientists.Here 's the meatiest part of the article : The team used meta-analytic procedures -- the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous , related literature -- to test the effects of violent video game play on the behaviors , thoughts and feelings of the individuals , ranging from elementary school-aged children to college undergraduates.The research also included new longitudinal data which provided further confirmation that playing violent video games is a causal risk factor for long-term harmful outcomes .
We 're given a pretty thin slice of actual facts here .
I see nothing of hard analysis or actual numbers anywhere in the article .
They only talk about methods .
They used their own study 's data .
" Meta-analysis " is just studying other published studies and incorporating that into your analysis .
" Longitudinal data " simple means tracking data across an additional dimension , undoubtedly time .
This means nothing more than " we looked at subjects over a period of time " .Anderson says the new study may be his last meta-analysis on violent video games because of its definitive findings.Well , it 's not all bad news , I guess .
Of course , the flip side is this means he would never have the opportunity to * disprove * his earlier conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I would have had much more respect for the study if it claimed to have established a strong correlation.
But using the word "conclusive" and "proven" only shows that psychologists use an entirely different standard of "proof" than other scientists.Here's the meatiest part of the article:The team used meta-analytic procedures -- the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous, related literature -- to test the effects of violent video game play on the behaviors, thoughts and feelings of the individuals, ranging from elementary school-aged children to college undergraduates.The research also included new longitudinal data which provided further confirmation that playing violent video games is a causal risk factor for long-term harmful outcomes.
We're given a pretty thin slice of actual facts here.
I see nothing of hard analysis or actual numbers anywhere in the article.
They only talk about methods.
They used their own study's data.
"Meta-analysis" is just studying other published studies and incorporating that into your analysis.
"Longitudinal data" simple means tracking data across an additional dimension, undoubtedly time.
This means nothing more than "we looked at subjects over a period of time".Anderson says the new study may be his last meta-analysis on violent video games because of its definitive findings.Well, it's not all bad news, I guess.
Of course, the flip side is this means he would never have the opportunity to *disprove* his earlier conclusions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31326104</id>
	<title>I am a psych student...</title>
	<author>the\_raptor</author>
	<datestamp>1267461960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. and this guys results are garbage.</p><p>Unless you are raising kids in controlled environments the best you can get out of these types of experiments (and analyses of them) is that violent stimulus can elicit temporary violent responses. The literature regarding TV is fairly certain of this conclusion but as TV isn't a hot button issue any more those researchers don't overhype it like video game researchers have been doing. Without full control of a humans environment you can't make conclusive judgements that a media stimulus is the cause of violent behaviour. The other problem is that what the researchers measure as "violence" would be dismissed as rough play by most parents. I spent my childhood wrestling with my friends and playing "violent" games (like samurai vs ninjas) even though my mother had a psych degree and had studied media violence in the 80's and so heavily limited my exposure to violent media.</p><p>What most of these researchers are actually trying to show is that media violence leads to real, curb stompings at 2am outside a bar, violence. Which as previous posters have noticed is unlikely given that such violence has fallen as children have gained access to these sorts of entertainments (that keep them inside and not bored, the two factors associated with severe youth violence).</p><p>What has been shown:<br>Media violence causes temporary increases in "violent" behaviour. Kids also act out scenarios from violent media they have seen in play situations.</p><p>What hasn't been shown:<br>Consuming lots of violent media will turn a sweet little angel into a psychopath that will tie other kids to a railway track (Many of the researchers in this area have noted that violent people consume lots of violent media and tried to show that link is causative.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. and this guys results are garbage.Unless you are raising kids in controlled environments the best you can get out of these types of experiments ( and analyses of them ) is that violent stimulus can elicit temporary violent responses .
The literature regarding TV is fairly certain of this conclusion but as TV is n't a hot button issue any more those researchers do n't overhype it like video game researchers have been doing .
Without full control of a humans environment you ca n't make conclusive judgements that a media stimulus is the cause of violent behaviour .
The other problem is that what the researchers measure as " violence " would be dismissed as rough play by most parents .
I spent my childhood wrestling with my friends and playing " violent " games ( like samurai vs ninjas ) even though my mother had a psych degree and had studied media violence in the 80 's and so heavily limited my exposure to violent media.What most of these researchers are actually trying to show is that media violence leads to real , curb stompings at 2am outside a bar , violence .
Which as previous posters have noticed is unlikely given that such violence has fallen as children have gained access to these sorts of entertainments ( that keep them inside and not bored , the two factors associated with severe youth violence ) .What has been shown : Media violence causes temporary increases in " violent " behaviour .
Kids also act out scenarios from violent media they have seen in play situations.What has n't been shown : Consuming lots of violent media will turn a sweet little angel into a psychopath that will tie other kids to a railway track ( Many of the researchers in this area have noted that violent people consume lots of violent media and tried to show that link is causative .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. and this guys results are garbage.Unless you are raising kids in controlled environments the best you can get out of these types of experiments (and analyses of them) is that violent stimulus can elicit temporary violent responses.
The literature regarding TV is fairly certain of this conclusion but as TV isn't a hot button issue any more those researchers don't overhype it like video game researchers have been doing.
Without full control of a humans environment you can't make conclusive judgements that a media stimulus is the cause of violent behaviour.
The other problem is that what the researchers measure as "violence" would be dismissed as rough play by most parents.
I spent my childhood wrestling with my friends and playing "violent" games (like samurai vs ninjas) even though my mother had a psych degree and had studied media violence in the 80's and so heavily limited my exposure to violent media.What most of these researchers are actually trying to show is that media violence leads to real, curb stompings at 2am outside a bar, violence.
Which as previous posters have noticed is unlikely given that such violence has fallen as children have gained access to these sorts of entertainments (that keep them inside and not bored, the two factors associated with severe youth violence).What has been shown:Media violence causes temporary increases in "violent" behaviour.
Kids also act out scenarios from violent media they have seen in play situations.What hasn't been shown:Consuming lots of violent media will turn a sweet little angel into a psychopath that will tie other kids to a railway track (Many of the researchers in this area have noted that violent people consume lots of violent media and tried to show that link is causative.
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31338958</id>
	<title>It's never the parent's fault</title>
	<author>cheatch</author>
	<datestamp>1267538520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The kids are fat, blame fast food <br>
<br>
The kids are stupid, blame the schools<br>
<br>
The kids smoke, blame cigarette ads with cartoons<br>
<br>
The kids are on drugs, blame rap<br>
<br>
The kids shot up a school, blame Marilyn Manson  <br>
<br>
The kids are violent, blame video games<br>
<br>
But never blame the parents, because they have nothing to do with kids right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The kids are fat , blame fast food The kids are stupid , blame the schools The kids smoke , blame cigarette ads with cartoons The kids are on drugs , blame rap The kids shot up a school , blame Marilyn Manson The kids are violent , blame video games But never blame the parents , because they have nothing to do with kids right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kids are fat, blame fast food 

The kids are stupid, blame the schools

The kids smoke, blame cigarette ads with cartoons

The kids are on drugs, blame rap

The kids shot up a school, blame Marilyn Manson  

The kids are violent, blame video games

But never blame the parents, because they have nothing to do with kids right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322810</id>
	<title>Of course video games ruin people...</title>
	<author>novakom</author>
	<datestamp>1267440960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and thus destroy society.  The end of the world is coming, thanks to violence in video games, just as it came thanks to rap, heavy metal, rock &amp; roll, various forms of art, movies, tv, radio, and virtually any technological innovation over the past 100 years.  I bet that when people first figured out how to make bronze they were like "the world is ending, things made of bronze will completely replace everything made of copper, the copper industry will go out of business, people will lose their jobs and starve, and society will be destroyed." (Or something like that, you get the point.)</p><p>You know, I don't have any problem with saying that violent video games desensitize people (not just kids) to violence and that may have (some) social impact.  In the same way that Jackie Chan movies glorify martial arts and Rage Against the Machine songs can incite anger and discontent.  What I (primarily) object to is a complete lack of understanding of the scale and context of the impact.  If there was reasoned discourse in this country, I would expect that people would say "well, how Much impact does a particular type of simulation have?" and the result of such discussions would result in some manner of reasoned rating system which, oh wait, we have (the VALUE of said rating system notwithstanding, especially in places like Australia).  But despite the at least reasonable attempt at a rating system, which makes sense, we do NOT have reasoned discourse in this country, and the result of this (and every single study, "study", and outright rant before and after it) is OH MY GOD SAVE THE CHILDRENS.</p><p>As a result, the world we live in, at least in the mainstream media, promotes that if your child plays video games, he/she/other will become a serial killer.  Period, end of sentence.  And we don't want that.  What we want is for our children to grow up into responsible, socially conscious adults, who would never hurt anyone else, and would, for example, donate millions of dollars for buying toys for sick children on a yearly basis (http://www.childsplaycharity.org/) or disgrace and disbar bombastic lawyers who make fantastic claims without evidence and violate court orders and judicial procedures to back up the false claims (http://kotaku.com/5054772/jack-thompson-disbarred).  That sounds like a reasonable thing to want from our current (and future) generations.</p><p>Now, again, I don't disagree that someone who had played through the latest Doom/Quake/Unreal/Modern Warfare clone is going to have some differences in they way they perceive violence vs someone who never consumed ANY VIOLENT MEDIA EVER (also known as an embryo), and I also admit that this particular article does not seem to want to raise the panic flag so much as say "there is some impact, how much we can't exactly calculate, but we should account for it in some way".  And I think most people on this site will agree with that statement-the problem is agreeing with what should be done.  (My impression is that) most people who have been exposed to significant amounts of video games believe that control should be imposed on the parental level.  Whether that's right or wrong, I don't know, but what I do know is this-if we were to have reasoned discourse on this, things would be better.  Unfortunately, that's really unrealistic these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and thus destroy society .
The end of the world is coming , thanks to violence in video games , just as it came thanks to rap , heavy metal , rock &amp; roll , various forms of art , movies , tv , radio , and virtually any technological innovation over the past 100 years .
I bet that when people first figured out how to make bronze they were like " the world is ending , things made of bronze will completely replace everything made of copper , the copper industry will go out of business , people will lose their jobs and starve , and society will be destroyed .
" ( Or something like that , you get the point .
) You know , I do n't have any problem with saying that violent video games desensitize people ( not just kids ) to violence and that may have ( some ) social impact .
In the same way that Jackie Chan movies glorify martial arts and Rage Against the Machine songs can incite anger and discontent .
What I ( primarily ) object to is a complete lack of understanding of the scale and context of the impact .
If there was reasoned discourse in this country , I would expect that people would say " well , how Much impact does a particular type of simulation have ?
" and the result of such discussions would result in some manner of reasoned rating system which , oh wait , we have ( the VALUE of said rating system notwithstanding , especially in places like Australia ) .
But despite the at least reasonable attempt at a rating system , which makes sense , we do NOT have reasoned discourse in this country , and the result of this ( and every single study , " study " , and outright rant before and after it ) is OH MY GOD SAVE THE CHILDRENS.As a result , the world we live in , at least in the mainstream media , promotes that if your child plays video games , he/she/other will become a serial killer .
Period , end of sentence .
And we do n't want that .
What we want is for our children to grow up into responsible , socially conscious adults , who would never hurt anyone else , and would , for example , donate millions of dollars for buying toys for sick children on a yearly basis ( http : //www.childsplaycharity.org/ ) or disgrace and disbar bombastic lawyers who make fantastic claims without evidence and violate court orders and judicial procedures to back up the false claims ( http : //kotaku.com/5054772/jack-thompson-disbarred ) .
That sounds like a reasonable thing to want from our current ( and future ) generations.Now , again , I do n't disagree that someone who had played through the latest Doom/Quake/Unreal/Modern Warfare clone is going to have some differences in they way they perceive violence vs someone who never consumed ANY VIOLENT MEDIA EVER ( also known as an embryo ) , and I also admit that this particular article does not seem to want to raise the panic flag so much as say " there is some impact , how much we ca n't exactly calculate , but we should account for it in some way " .
And I think most people on this site will agree with that statement-the problem is agreeing with what should be done .
( My impression is that ) most people who have been exposed to significant amounts of video games believe that control should be imposed on the parental level .
Whether that 's right or wrong , I do n't know , but what I do know is this-if we were to have reasoned discourse on this , things would be better .
Unfortunately , that 's really unrealistic these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and thus destroy society.
The end of the world is coming, thanks to violence in video games, just as it came thanks to rap, heavy metal, rock &amp; roll, various forms of art, movies, tv, radio, and virtually any technological innovation over the past 100 years.
I bet that when people first figured out how to make bronze they were like "the world is ending, things made of bronze will completely replace everything made of copper, the copper industry will go out of business, people will lose their jobs and starve, and society will be destroyed.
" (Or something like that, you get the point.
)You know, I don't have any problem with saying that violent video games desensitize people (not just kids) to violence and that may have (some) social impact.
In the same way that Jackie Chan movies glorify martial arts and Rage Against the Machine songs can incite anger and discontent.
What I (primarily) object to is a complete lack of understanding of the scale and context of the impact.
If there was reasoned discourse in this country, I would expect that people would say "well, how Much impact does a particular type of simulation have?
" and the result of such discussions would result in some manner of reasoned rating system which, oh wait, we have (the VALUE of said rating system notwithstanding, especially in places like Australia).
But despite the at least reasonable attempt at a rating system, which makes sense, we do NOT have reasoned discourse in this country, and the result of this (and every single study, "study", and outright rant before and after it) is OH MY GOD SAVE THE CHILDRENS.As a result, the world we live in, at least in the mainstream media, promotes that if your child plays video games, he/she/other will become a serial killer.
Period, end of sentence.
And we don't want that.
What we want is for our children to grow up into responsible, socially conscious adults, who would never hurt anyone else, and would, for example, donate millions of dollars for buying toys for sick children on a yearly basis (http://www.childsplaycharity.org/) or disgrace and disbar bombastic lawyers who make fantastic claims without evidence and violate court orders and judicial procedures to back up the false claims (http://kotaku.com/5054772/jack-thompson-disbarred).
That sounds like a reasonable thing to want from our current (and future) generations.Now, again, I don't disagree that someone who had played through the latest Doom/Quake/Unreal/Modern Warfare clone is going to have some differences in they way they perceive violence vs someone who never consumed ANY VIOLENT MEDIA EVER (also known as an embryo), and I also admit that this particular article does not seem to want to raise the panic flag so much as say "there is some impact, how much we can't exactly calculate, but we should account for it in some way".
And I think most people on this site will agree with that statement-the problem is agreeing with what should be done.
(My impression is that) most people who have been exposed to significant amounts of video games believe that control should be imposed on the parental level.
Whether that's right or wrong, I don't know, but what I do know is this-if we were to have reasoned discourse on this, things would be better.
Unfortunately, that's really unrealistic these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324006</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267446240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't do a "double-blind study" about the effects of video game violence. The participants will always know whether or not they are playing a violent video game.</p><p>I agree with you that it's the best model for experimental science in general, but it only works with certain things. It's been so successful with medicine, for example, because it's easy to create a pair of pills that appear to be very similar, but in reality have very different ingredients. Whether or not I like the conclusions of this particular meta-analysis, there's no use claiming that we can't ever make any conclusion whatsoever about the effects of anything unless we do a double-blind study.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't do a " double-blind study " about the effects of video game violence .
The participants will always know whether or not they are playing a violent video game.I agree with you that it 's the best model for experimental science in general , but it only works with certain things .
It 's been so successful with medicine , for example , because it 's easy to create a pair of pills that appear to be very similar , but in reality have very different ingredients .
Whether or not I like the conclusions of this particular meta-analysis , there 's no use claiming that we ca n't ever make any conclusion whatsoever about the effects of anything unless we do a double-blind study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't do a "double-blind study" about the effects of video game violence.
The participants will always know whether or not they are playing a violent video game.I agree with you that it's the best model for experimental science in general, but it only works with certain things.
It's been so successful with medicine, for example, because it's easy to create a pair of pills that appear to be very similar, but in reality have very different ingredients.
Whether or not I like the conclusions of this particular meta-analysis, there's no use claiming that we can't ever make any conclusion whatsoever about the effects of anything unless we do a double-blind study.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322834</id>
	<title>Your darn tootin' it's conclusive!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267441020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's every bit as conclusive as Global Warming.  Time to start regulating video games to reduce your Violence Footprint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's every bit as conclusive as Global Warming .
Time to start regulating video games to reduce your Violence Footprint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's every bit as conclusive as Global Warming.
Time to start regulating video games to reduce your Violence Footprint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323800</id>
	<title>Re:I'll shoot anyone in the face who says that I'm</title>
	<author>StupiderThanYou</author>
	<datestamp>1267445220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're vi?  Nice to meet you, vi, I'm emacs.</p></div><p>You're not really emacs - emacs would never say that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're vi ?
Nice to meet you , vi , I 'm emacs.You 're not really emacs - emacs would never say that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're vi?
Nice to meet you, vi, I'm emacs.You're not really emacs - emacs would never say that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324762</id>
	<title>Know what else raises my aggression level?</title>
	<author>Narcocide</author>
	<datestamp>1267450680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading crap like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading crap like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading crap like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325542</id>
	<title>Yep, just like with AGW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267456920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like Anthropogenic Global Warming is proven 'conclusively'.  I love how many of the same people here decry this kind of 'study' yet eagerly hang on Al Gore's every word while claiming that there is 'conclusive' evidence when there isn't.</p><p>Double standards are so ugly, but I would normally expect more from so called 'educated' and 'intelligent' people such as the geeks on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p><p>More like lemmings than thinking individuals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like Anthropogenic Global Warming is proven 'conclusively' .
I love how many of the same people here decry this kind of 'study ' yet eagerly hang on Al Gore 's every word while claiming that there is 'conclusive ' evidence when there is n't.Double standards are so ugly , but I would normally expect more from so called 'educated ' and 'intelligent ' people such as the geeks on /.More like lemmings than thinking individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like Anthropogenic Global Warming is proven 'conclusively'.
I love how many of the same people here decry this kind of 'study' yet eagerly hang on Al Gore's every word while claiming that there is 'conclusive' evidence when there isn't.Double standards are so ugly, but I would normally expect more from so called 'educated' and 'intelligent' people such as the geeks on /.More like lemmings than thinking individuals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322912</id>
	<title>Good?</title>
	<author>rev\_sanchez</author>
	<datestamp>1267441260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Western children today are inheriting a legacy of squandered resources, environmental destruction, and increased global competition.  Their futures have been mortgaged time and again by their predecessors.  I'd like to think that these are things they could work through enlightened cooperation but in a time of shortage a generation of more aggressive, less warm and fuzzy kids might fare better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Western children today are inheriting a legacy of squandered resources , environmental destruction , and increased global competition .
Their futures have been mortgaged time and again by their predecessors .
I 'd like to think that these are things they could work through enlightened cooperation but in a time of shortage a generation of more aggressive , less warm and fuzzy kids might fare better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Western children today are inheriting a legacy of squandered resources, environmental destruction, and increased global competition.
Their futures have been mortgaged time and again by their predecessors.
I'd like to think that these are things they could work through enlightened cooperation but in a time of shortage a generation of more aggressive, less warm and fuzzy kids might fare better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324016</id>
	<title>Garbage in, Garbage out</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1267446300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how long it will be before we realize that the human computer is just like any other computer.  If you put garbage into it, you are going to get garbage out.  Excessive violence and sexuality as inputs into the human brain will cause excessive violence and sexuality as well.  It's just the natural order of things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how long it will be before we realize that the human computer is just like any other computer .
If you put garbage into it , you are going to get garbage out .
Excessive violence and sexuality as inputs into the human brain will cause excessive violence and sexuality as well .
It 's just the natural order of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how long it will be before we realize that the human computer is just like any other computer.
If you put garbage into it, you are going to get garbage out.
Excessive violence and sexuality as inputs into the human brain will cause excessive violence and sexuality as well.
It's just the natural order of things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325404</id>
	<title>Quite the opposite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267455420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've noticed that most of my friends who play any video games at all are actually less violent and more interested in studying and the like than people who don't. Instead of walkin round da hood or going to the movies all the time, they sometimes stay at home and play video games. I was playing Silent Hill on the PS1 when I was like...9, and I've never gotten in a fight or anything (About to be 18). Also, me and many of my friends are in the top 1\% of our high school class and we've all played counter-strike, call of duty, and other violent games routinely for years. Where are my friends that thought video games were lame? In school suspension, juvie, or flunking regular classes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've noticed that most of my friends who play any video games at all are actually less violent and more interested in studying and the like than people who do n't .
Instead of walkin round da hood or going to the movies all the time , they sometimes stay at home and play video games .
I was playing Silent Hill on the PS1 when I was like...9 , and I 've never gotten in a fight or anything ( About to be 18 ) .
Also , me and many of my friends are in the top 1 \ % of our high school class and we 've all played counter-strike , call of duty , and other violent games routinely for years .
Where are my friends that thought video games were lame ?
In school suspension , juvie , or flunking regular classes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've noticed that most of my friends who play any video games at all are actually less violent and more interested in studying and the like than people who don't.
Instead of walkin round da hood or going to the movies all the time, they sometimes stay at home and play video games.
I was playing Silent Hill on the PS1 when I was like...9, and I've never gotten in a fight or anything (About to be 18).
Also, me and many of my friends are in the top 1\% of our high school class and we've all played counter-strike, call of duty, and other violent games routinely for years.
Where are my friends that thought video games were lame?
In school suspension, juvie, or flunking regular classes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322240</id>
	<title>Let me at 'em</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1267438800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll pummel them I tells ya! How dare they! Video games don't make me more violent! I'll rip their throats out!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll pummel them I tells ya !
How dare they !
Video games do n't make me more violent !
I 'll rip their throats out ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll pummel them I tells ya!
How dare they!
Video games don't make me more violent!
I'll rip their throats out!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323314</id>
	<title>Re:Violent crime descrese after first video game</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1267442820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair to them, they're at least <em>trying</em> to isolate a factor, which is a lot more than what you're doing. The same drop in violent crime could be attributed to cable tv, and it could easily be argued that the drop would have been MUCH higher, if it weren't for those pesky games.</p><p>I would suggest that it's disingenuous to claim that there is a measurable increase in real world physical violence that can be directly attributed to video games, but it's much easier to suggest that other social indexes (like empathy) are affected.</p><p>Still, I don't think that there is anything resembling conclusive proof. The studies are all much too narrow, and many of the things measured are questionable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair to them , they 're at least trying to isolate a factor , which is a lot more than what you 're doing .
The same drop in violent crime could be attributed to cable tv , and it could easily be argued that the drop would have been MUCH higher , if it were n't for those pesky games.I would suggest that it 's disingenuous to claim that there is a measurable increase in real world physical violence that can be directly attributed to video games , but it 's much easier to suggest that other social indexes ( like empathy ) are affected.Still , I do n't think that there is anything resembling conclusive proof .
The studies are all much too narrow , and many of the things measured are questionable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair to them, they're at least trying to isolate a factor, which is a lot more than what you're doing.
The same drop in violent crime could be attributed to cable tv, and it could easily be argued that the drop would have been MUCH higher, if it weren't for those pesky games.I would suggest that it's disingenuous to claim that there is a measurable increase in real world physical violence that can be directly attributed to video games, but it's much easier to suggest that other social indexes (like empathy) are affected.Still, I don't think that there is anything resembling conclusive proof.
The studies are all much too narrow, and many of the things measured are questionable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323168</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>thegrassyknowl</author>
	<datestamp>1267442220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's just another study by people with an agenda.</p></div><p>I'm worried about the way people are so dismissive about this. They may or may not have an agenda. You don't really know what it is. You can imply from their results that they were sponsored by the anti-gaming league, but that may not be accurate.</p><p>I have a personal theory (just from studying friends and family members who play violent games vs those who don't). My sample set is small, but those who I know personally and play violent games have less empathy for others, are more likely to be self-oriented and generally perform worse in academic pursuits. If I could justify the time and the money I'd love to do a much larger study but that's not my field so I won't.</p><p>Perhaps, instead of poo-pooing the results of all these studies you should read them all - in detail. The real facts are there to see if you'd only bother to read them instead of dismissing everybody who doesn't agree with you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just another study by people with an agenda.I 'm worried about the way people are so dismissive about this .
They may or may not have an agenda .
You do n't really know what it is .
You can imply from their results that they were sponsored by the anti-gaming league , but that may not be accurate.I have a personal theory ( just from studying friends and family members who play violent games vs those who do n't ) .
My sample set is small , but those who I know personally and play violent games have less empathy for others , are more likely to be self-oriented and generally perform worse in academic pursuits .
If I could justify the time and the money I 'd love to do a much larger study but that 's not my field so I wo n't.Perhaps , instead of poo-pooing the results of all these studies you should read them all - in detail .
The real facts are there to see if you 'd only bother to read them instead of dismissing everybody who does n't agree with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just another study by people with an agenda.I'm worried about the way people are so dismissive about this.
They may or may not have an agenda.
You don't really know what it is.
You can imply from their results that they were sponsored by the anti-gaming league, but that may not be accurate.I have a personal theory (just from studying friends and family members who play violent games vs those who don't).
My sample set is small, but those who I know personally and play violent games have less empathy for others, are more likely to be self-oriented and generally perform worse in academic pursuits.
If I could justify the time and the money I'd love to do a much larger study but that's not my field so I won't.Perhaps, instead of poo-pooing the results of all these studies you should read them all - in detail.
The real facts are there to see if you'd only bother to read them instead of dismissing everybody who doesn't agree with you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325326</id>
	<title>Re:Or maybe</title>
	<author>Black Gold Alchemist</author>
	<datestamp>1267454820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm really really glad they are just texting and writing myspace pages. People have always been like that, they just talked in bars or whatever. I'm just glad their talking instead of vandalising my car and my workplace.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really really glad they are just texting and writing myspace pages .
People have always been like that , they just talked in bars or whatever .
I 'm just glad their talking instead of vandalising my car and my workplace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really really glad they are just texting and writing myspace pages.
People have always been like that, they just talked in bars or whatever.
I'm just glad their talking instead of vandalising my car and my workplace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324872</id>
	<title>Re:As always...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1267451340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And Mike Tyson is one example. But look at all the other boxers who didn't do that, look at all the karate champions who could easily seriously harm people, yet they don't go on rampages, etc. One example doesn't prove anything, add into the fact that Mike Tyson was probably doing steroids which affect emotional stability and you probably have the worst example.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And Mike Tyson is one example .
But look at all the other boxers who did n't do that , look at all the karate champions who could easily seriously harm people , yet they do n't go on rampages , etc .
One example does n't prove anything , add into the fact that Mike Tyson was probably doing steroids which affect emotional stability and you probably have the worst example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Mike Tyson is one example.
But look at all the other boxers who didn't do that, look at all the karate champions who could easily seriously harm people, yet they don't go on rampages, etc.
One example doesn't prove anything, add into the fact that Mike Tyson was probably doing steroids which affect emotional stability and you probably have the worst example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322174</id>
	<title>So does living in New York</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what else makes people indifferent and uncaring... living in New York city.  Nobody can ignore a bum on the street nearly as well.  Should we ban living there too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what else makes people indifferent and uncaring... living in New York city .
Nobody can ignore a bum on the street nearly as well .
Should we ban living there too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what else makes people indifferent and uncaring... living in New York city.
Nobody can ignore a bum on the street nearly as well.
Should we ban living there too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324796</id>
	<title>So tell me, Mr. Professor...</title>
	<author>maugle</author>
	<datestamp>1267450860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are comic books and rock&amp;roll still corrupting our youth, too?<br>
Actually, hold that thought, I need to set up the sacrificial altar for our next game of Dungeons &amp; Dragons...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are comic books and rock&amp;roll still corrupting our youth , too ?
Actually , hold that thought , I need to set up the sacrificial altar for our next game of Dungeons &amp; Dragons.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are comic books and rock&amp;roll still corrupting our youth, too?
Actually, hold that thought, I need to set up the sacrificial altar for our next game of Dungeons &amp; Dragons...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322558</id>
	<title>Conclusively proven flawed</title>
	<author>MaerD</author>
	<datestamp>1267440000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> "The team used meta-analytic procedures &mdash; the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous, related literature</p>  </div><p>This just means that if *ANY* part of the previous published studies or literature on the subject is flawed in  any way (bad sample size, bad methods, wrong conclusions) your study is doomed to produce the same flawed conclusion. Also, which studies were used? Did you use ones that did not support your position?
<br> <br> This all just points to "I want to say I've done a study without doing any real science".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The team used meta-analytic procedures    the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous , related literature This just means that if * ANY * part of the previous published studies or literature on the subject is flawed in any way ( bad sample size , bad methods , wrong conclusions ) your study is doomed to produce the same flawed conclusion .
Also , which studies were used ?
Did you use ones that did not support your position ?
This all just points to " I want to say I 've done a study without doing any real science " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "The team used meta-analytic procedures — the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous, related literature  This just means that if *ANY* part of the previous published studies or literature on the subject is flawed in  any way (bad sample size, bad methods, wrong conclusions) your study is doomed to produce the same flawed conclusion.
Also, which studies were used?
Did you use ones that did not support your position?
This all just points to "I want to say I've done a study without doing any real science".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322774</id>
	<title>Lists of these violent games...</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1267440840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always love it when someone sends out one of those Do Not Buy These Violent Games lists because I get great ideas for what to buy my nephews for Christmas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always love it when someone sends out one of those Do Not Buy These Violent Games lists because I get great ideas for what to buy my nephews for Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always love it when someone sends out one of those Do Not Buy These Violent Games lists because I get great ideas for what to buy my nephews for Christmas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324950</id>
	<title>Re:Definitive on what?</title>
	<author>bolthole</author>
	<datestamp>1267451880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But bugs bunny/road-runner/daffy duck is NOT REALISTIC.<br>It makes a huge difference.</p><p>I have my own, small, but quite conclusive "study group" on the subject:</p><p>I have 3 children. all boys. I have a very direct insight into their behaviour.</p><p>Watching cartoonised "violence" does not noticably change their behaviour, particularly when both sides are non-realistic.<br>(both because it is cartoon, and animals instead of humans)</p><p>However, watching strongly human-identified violence, has a very strong influence on them.<br>eg: watching power rangers, fighting other humanoids. It makes them start "play" punching and kicking each other.<br>The same effect comes from "humanized" violent video games.</p><p>When I take away that stuff... they are much, much calmer and non-combative.<br>So guess what? I keep that stuff away from them. and... SURPRISE SURPRISE.. they are drastically less aggressive and violent then their peers who watch that stuff.</p><p>Now that's "conclusive".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But bugs bunny/road-runner/daffy duck is NOT REALISTIC.It makes a huge difference.I have my own , small , but quite conclusive " study group " on the subject : I have 3 children .
all boys .
I have a very direct insight into their behaviour.Watching cartoonised " violence " does not noticably change their behaviour , particularly when both sides are non-realistic .
( both because it is cartoon , and animals instead of humans ) However , watching strongly human-identified violence , has a very strong influence on them.eg : watching power rangers , fighting other humanoids .
It makes them start " play " punching and kicking each other.The same effect comes from " humanized " violent video games.When I take away that stuff... they are much , much calmer and non-combative.So guess what ?
I keep that stuff away from them .
and... SURPRISE SURPRISE.. they are drastically less aggressive and violent then their peers who watch that stuff.Now that 's " conclusive " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But bugs bunny/road-runner/daffy duck is NOT REALISTIC.It makes a huge difference.I have my own, small, but quite conclusive "study group" on the subject:I have 3 children.
all boys.
I have a very direct insight into their behaviour.Watching cartoonised "violence" does not noticably change their behaviour, particularly when both sides are non-realistic.
(both because it is cartoon, and animals instead of humans)However, watching strongly human-identified violence, has a very strong influence on them.eg: watching power rangers, fighting other humanoids.
It makes them start "play" punching and kicking each other.The same effect comes from "humanized" violent video games.When I take away that stuff... they are much, much calmer and non-combative.So guess what?
I keep that stuff away from them.
and... SURPRISE SURPRISE.. they are drastically less aggressive and violent then their peers who watch that stuff.Now that's "conclusive".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325964</id>
	<title>conclusive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267460400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's easy to prove anything conclusively.  First, start with your conclusion...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy to prove anything conclusively .
First , start with your conclusion.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy to prove anything conclusively.
First, start with your conclusion...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323002</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1267441560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's just another study by people with an agenda.</p></div><p>Yes, but this time they have <b>CONCLUSIONS!</b>  Which is more newsworthy than an unbiased study by honest researchers who caution people not to overreact to their results.  It is always this way, which is why even after that study linking vaccines to autism has been completely demolished, a depressing amount of people still run around thinking that autism is caused by vaccines.  That study was poorly done, and the results were announced to the world as final proof rather than something that would merit at most one or two repeats of the experiments before it was taken seriously.</p><p>If you want to get a lot of attention and don't care that all of the serious professionals in your field will immediately see that you are a quack and will eventually prove you wrong, then make a quick study and shout your results as the word of God for all the public to hear.</p><p>""We can now say with utmost confidence that regardless of research method -- that is experimental, correlational, or longitudinal -- and regardless of the cultures tested in this study [East and West], you get the same effects,"</p><p>Yes, you can say that, Mr. Anderson.  You should also point out IN THAT SAME FUCKING BREATH that regardless of research method, YOU COULD STILL EASILY BE WRONG.  As you're promoting this as infallible truth, based on research you didn't even do, I'd say that increases the chances that you're wrong, because you're a complete moron.</p><p>I'm actually a bit surprised he actually says policy needs to be changed, rather than "Elect me to be supreme overlord and I'll have this whole violence thing sorted out in a month."  I mean, if you're going to boldly overstate your results, then by God, overstate your results, don't pansy out at the end and suggest someone else be empowered to deal with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just another study by people with an agenda.Yes , but this time they have CONCLUSIONS !
Which is more newsworthy than an unbiased study by honest researchers who caution people not to overreact to their results .
It is always this way , which is why even after that study linking vaccines to autism has been completely demolished , a depressing amount of people still run around thinking that autism is caused by vaccines .
That study was poorly done , and the results were announced to the world as final proof rather than something that would merit at most one or two repeats of the experiments before it was taken seriously.If you want to get a lot of attention and do n't care that all of the serious professionals in your field will immediately see that you are a quack and will eventually prove you wrong , then make a quick study and shout your results as the word of God for all the public to hear .
" " We can now say with utmost confidence that regardless of research method -- that is experimental , correlational , or longitudinal -- and regardless of the cultures tested in this study [ East and West ] , you get the same effects , " Yes , you can say that , Mr. Anderson. You should also point out IN THAT SAME FUCKING BREATH that regardless of research method , YOU COULD STILL EASILY BE WRONG .
As you 're promoting this as infallible truth , based on research you did n't even do , I 'd say that increases the chances that you 're wrong , because you 're a complete moron.I 'm actually a bit surprised he actually says policy needs to be changed , rather than " Elect me to be supreme overlord and I 'll have this whole violence thing sorted out in a month .
" I mean , if you 're going to boldly overstate your results , then by God , overstate your results , do n't pansy out at the end and suggest someone else be empowered to deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just another study by people with an agenda.Yes, but this time they have CONCLUSIONS!
Which is more newsworthy than an unbiased study by honest researchers who caution people not to overreact to their results.
It is always this way, which is why even after that study linking vaccines to autism has been completely demolished, a depressing amount of people still run around thinking that autism is caused by vaccines.
That study was poorly done, and the results were announced to the world as final proof rather than something that would merit at most one or two repeats of the experiments before it was taken seriously.If you want to get a lot of attention and don't care that all of the serious professionals in your field will immediately see that you are a quack and will eventually prove you wrong, then make a quick study and shout your results as the word of God for all the public to hear.
""We can now say with utmost confidence that regardless of research method -- that is experimental, correlational, or longitudinal -- and regardless of the cultures tested in this study [East and West], you get the same effects,"Yes, you can say that, Mr. Anderson.  You should also point out IN THAT SAME FUCKING BREATH that regardless of research method, YOU COULD STILL EASILY BE WRONG.
As you're promoting this as infallible truth, based on research you didn't even do, I'd say that increases the chances that you're wrong, because you're a complete moron.I'm actually a bit surprised he actually says policy needs to be changed, rather than "Elect me to be supreme overlord and I'll have this whole violence thing sorted out in a month.
"  I mean, if you're going to boldly overstate your results, then by God, overstate your results, don't pansy out at the end and suggest someone else be empowered to deal with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322184</id>
	<title>Pretty balanced view</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:<blockquote><div><p>"These are not huge effects -- not on the order of joining a gang vs. not joining a gang," said Anderson. "But these effects are also not trivial in size. It is one risk factor for future aggression and other sort of negative outcomes. And it's a risk factor that's easy for an individual parent to deal with -- at least, easier than changing most other known risk factors for aggression and violence, such as poverty or one's genetic structure."</p></div></blockquote><p>

As a parent, that seems a pretty fair and balanced analysis to me.

And yes, I have been known to play GTA myself. As an adult.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " These are not huge effects -- not on the order of joining a gang vs. not joining a gang , " said Anderson .
" But these effects are also not trivial in size .
It is one risk factor for future aggression and other sort of negative outcomes .
And it 's a risk factor that 's easy for an individual parent to deal with -- at least , easier than changing most other known risk factors for aggression and violence , such as poverty or one 's genetic structure .
" As a parent , that seems a pretty fair and balanced analysis to me .
And yes , I have been known to play GTA myself .
As an adult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:"These are not huge effects -- not on the order of joining a gang vs. not joining a gang," said Anderson.
"But these effects are also not trivial in size.
It is one risk factor for future aggression and other sort of negative outcomes.
And it's a risk factor that's easy for an individual parent to deal with -- at least, easier than changing most other known risk factors for aggression and violence, such as poverty or one's genetic structure.
"

As a parent, that seems a pretty fair and balanced analysis to me.
And yes, I have been known to play GTA myself.
As an adult.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322714</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty balanced view</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1267440660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a reasonable statement on its face, yes, but you don't judge scientific works by their conclusions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a reasonable statement on its face , yes , but you do n't judge scientific works by their conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a reasonable statement on its face, yes, but you don't judge scientific works by their conclusions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322568</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1267440060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's only an "agenda" in the sense that it has a viewpoint you disagree with.</p><p>Here's an article done a while back by the same psychologist as the study done in the OP: <a href="http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx" title="apa.org">http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx</a> [apa.org]. To summerize:</p><p>Video Game Violence, and media violence in general, are more than proven to increase aggression. This is not an area of "mixed results" any more than any other group of studies--there are always outliers. It's as conclusive as wifi and cell phone signals not causing cancer or being responsible for "electrosensitivity". Probably more so, since media violence has had over 40 years of research, whereas EMF health studies are relatively recent.</p><p>He also has some very pointed words about the massive overuse of the phrase "Correlation is not causation".</p><p>If you still think he has an agenda, then read this:</p><p> <i>Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is <b>certainly not the most important one</b>. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.</i> (Emphisis mine)</p><p>In other words, if your goal is to reduce violence in society at large, media violence, including video games, are not where you should be focusing your efforts. These studies in no way justify going to huge lengths to censor such violence. They justify parents being more attentive. Inattentive parents in various forms are probably a bigger factor in overall societal violence than any specific media violence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only an " agenda " in the sense that it has a viewpoint you disagree with.Here 's an article done a while back by the same psychologist as the study done in the OP : http : //www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx [ apa.org ] .
To summerize : Video Game Violence , and media violence in general , are more than proven to increase aggression .
This is not an area of " mixed results " any more than any other group of studies--there are always outliers .
It 's as conclusive as wifi and cell phone signals not causing cancer or being responsible for " electrosensitivity " .
Probably more so , since media violence has had over 40 years of research , whereas EMF health studies are relatively recent.He also has some very pointed words about the massive overuse of the phrase " Correlation is not causation " .If you still think he has an agenda , then read this : Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one .
Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this .
( Emphisis mine ) In other words , if your goal is to reduce violence in society at large , media violence , including video games , are not where you should be focusing your efforts .
These studies in no way justify going to huge lengths to censor such violence .
They justify parents being more attentive .
Inattentive parents in various forms are probably a bigger factor in overall societal violence than any specific media violence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only an "agenda" in the sense that it has a viewpoint you disagree with.Here's an article done a while back by the same psychologist as the study done in the OP: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx [apa.org].
To summerize:Video Game Violence, and media violence in general, are more than proven to increase aggression.
This is not an area of "mixed results" any more than any other group of studies--there are always outliers.
It's as conclusive as wifi and cell phone signals not causing cancer or being responsible for "electrosensitivity".
Probably more so, since media violence has had over 40 years of research, whereas EMF health studies are relatively recent.He also has some very pointed words about the massive overuse of the phrase "Correlation is not causation".If you still think he has an agenda, then read this: Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one.
Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.
(Emphisis mine)In other words, if your goal is to reduce violence in society at large, media violence, including video games, are not where you should be focusing your efforts.
These studies in no way justify going to huge lengths to censor such violence.
They justify parents being more attentive.
Inattentive parents in various forms are probably a bigger factor in overall societal violence than any specific media violence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322710</id>
	<title>Re:Or maybe</title>
	<author>Balial</author>
	<datestamp>1267440660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's right! "I see your statistical analysis of 130 different studies and raise you baseless conjecture".</p><p>I'm convinced.</p><p>(This'll probably get modded as a troll, but it's no more so than the parent)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's right !
" I see your statistical analysis of 130 different studies and raise you baseless conjecture " .I 'm convinced .
( This 'll probably get modded as a troll , but it 's no more so than the parent )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's right!
"I see your statistical analysis of 130 different studies and raise you baseless conjecture".I'm convinced.
(This'll probably get modded as a troll, but it's no more so than the parent)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324518</id>
	<title>modded down flamebait in 3..2...1..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267449060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what is the difference between this guy, who CONCLUSIVELY has a financial/prestige interest in this ludicrous result of violence in video games (books, speaking fees, oprah, NSF grants) and global warming scientists?  Not saying global warming isnt real.  Just saying there is a lot of incentive$$$$$$$.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is the difference between this guy , who CONCLUSIVELY has a financial/prestige interest in this ludicrous result of violence in video games ( books , speaking fees , oprah , NSF grants ) and global warming scientists ?
Not saying global warming isnt real .
Just saying there is a lot of incentive $ $ $ $ $ $ $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is the difference between this guy, who CONCLUSIVELY has a financial/prestige interest in this ludicrous result of violence in video games (books, speaking fees, oprah, NSF grants) and global warming scientists?
Not saying global warming isnt real.
Just saying there is a lot of incentive$$$$$$$.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324504</id>
	<title>This is stupid</title>
	<author>LBt1st</author>
	<datestamp>1267448940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Far more violence has been caused by religion. Yet we give these people a free pass and tax breaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Far more violence has been caused by religion .
Yet we give these people a free pass and tax breaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Far more violence has been caused by religion.
Yet we give these people a free pass and tax breaks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324336</id>
	<title>Meta-Analysis</title>
	<author>medv4380</author>
	<datestamp>1267447920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wasn't too sure what this "meta-analysis" actually was.  From what I could find and what Wikipedia says this type of study is easily abused and flawed.  <p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Dangers\_of\_Agenda\_Driven\_Bias" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Dangers of Agenda Driven Bias</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p> I wish I could get my hands on the studies that he used to make up his study just read them and then burn them in a <b>Game Induced Fit of Rage</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was n't too sure what this " meta-analysis " actually was .
From what I could find and what Wikipedia says this type of study is easily abused and flawed .
Dangers of Agenda Driven Bias [ wikipedia.org ] I wish I could get my hands on the studies that he used to make up his study just read them and then burn them in a Game Induced Fit of Rage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasn't too sure what this "meta-analysis" actually was.
From what I could find and what Wikipedia says this type of study is easily abused and flawed.
Dangers of Agenda Driven Bias [wikipedia.org]  I wish I could get my hands on the studies that he used to make up his study just read them and then burn them in a Game Induced Fit of Rage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323288</id>
	<title>Correlation does not equal Causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267442640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>n/t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>n/t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n/t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323218</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty balanced view</title>
	<author>monoi</author>
	<datestamp>1267442460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be honest, the article was so lacking in facts that I just read it as an op-ed piece and responded accordingly. If there was a scientific article in there somewhere, then the scientist in question needs either to go on a "communicating science" course. Or perhaps, to stop going on them.</p><p>Really, what is the value in a meta-analysis anyway? To amplify all the biases in the original analyses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest , the article was so lacking in facts that I just read it as an op-ed piece and responded accordingly .
If there was a scientific article in there somewhere , then the scientist in question needs either to go on a " communicating science " course .
Or perhaps , to stop going on them.Really , what is the value in a meta-analysis anyway ?
To amplify all the biases in the original analyses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest, the article was so lacking in facts that I just read it as an op-ed piece and responded accordingly.
If there was a scientific article in there somewhere, then the scientist in question needs either to go on a "communicating science" course.
Or perhaps, to stop going on them.Really, what is the value in a meta-analysis anyway?
To amplify all the biases in the original analyses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322654</id>
	<title>Very close to being junk science.</title>
	<author>RiffRafff</author>
	<datestamp>1267440360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If a meta-analysis is conducted by an individual or organization with a bias or predetermined desired outcome, it should be treated as highly suspect or having a high likelihood of being "junk science". From an integrity perspective, researchers with a bias should avoid meta-analysis and use a less abuse-prone (or independent) form of research."</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Dangers\_of\_Agenda\_Driven\_Bias" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Dangers\_of\_Agenda\_Driven\_Bias</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If a meta-analysis is conducted by an individual or organization with a bias or predetermined desired outcome , it should be treated as highly suspect or having a high likelihood of being " junk science " .
From an integrity perspective , researchers with a bias should avoid meta-analysis and use a less abuse-prone ( or independent ) form of research .
" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis # Dangers \ _of \ _Agenda \ _Driven \ _Bias [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If a meta-analysis is conducted by an individual or organization with a bias or predetermined desired outcome, it should be treated as highly suspect or having a high likelihood of being "junk science".
From an integrity perspective, researchers with a bias should avoid meta-analysis and use a less abuse-prone (or independent) form of research.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Dangers\_of\_Agenda\_Driven\_Bias [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322720</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... no.</title>
	<author>algormortis</author>
	<datestamp>1267440720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with this. The majority of people who conduct these studies and find that video games "make people more violent" are generally <i>trying</i> to prove that they do. Probably everyone can attest to at least one friend they know that acts more aggressive <i>while</i> playing games, but definitely not after. My own brother swears like a sailor when he plays flash games about amoebas and Tetris and the like; it's more of a competitive aggression than a response to violence.
<br> <br>
Also, in terms of desensitizing, it's more likely that the news desensitizes people than violent video games. Nobody even flinches nowadays when they hear about another car bomb or some other terrorist attack. Killings happen daily; it's a pretty well-known fact. When the news constantly report it, people stop caring. Playing Halo 3 or COD: Modern Warfare 2 aren't what make people yawn when they hear about the latest tragedy befalling people in Darfur, Rwanda, etc. It's the fact that when news stations constantly report such things, they simply become... expected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with this .
The majority of people who conduct these studies and find that video games " make people more violent " are generally trying to prove that they do .
Probably everyone can attest to at least one friend they know that acts more aggressive while playing games , but definitely not after .
My own brother swears like a sailor when he plays flash games about amoebas and Tetris and the like ; it 's more of a competitive aggression than a response to violence .
Also , in terms of desensitizing , it 's more likely that the news desensitizes people than violent video games .
Nobody even flinches nowadays when they hear about another car bomb or some other terrorist attack .
Killings happen daily ; it 's a pretty well-known fact .
When the news constantly report it , people stop caring .
Playing Halo 3 or COD : Modern Warfare 2 are n't what make people yawn when they hear about the latest tragedy befalling people in Darfur , Rwanda , etc .
It 's the fact that when news stations constantly report such things , they simply become... expected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with this.
The majority of people who conduct these studies and find that video games "make people more violent" are generally trying to prove that they do.
Probably everyone can attest to at least one friend they know that acts more aggressive while playing games, but definitely not after.
My own brother swears like a sailor when he plays flash games about amoebas and Tetris and the like; it's more of a competitive aggression than a response to violence.
Also, in terms of desensitizing, it's more likely that the news desensitizes people than violent video games.
Nobody even flinches nowadays when they hear about another car bomb or some other terrorist attack.
Killings happen daily; it's a pretty well-known fact.
When the news constantly report it, people stop caring.
Playing Halo 3 or COD: Modern Warfare 2 aren't what make people yawn when they hear about the latest tragedy befalling people in Darfur, Rwanda, etc.
It's the fact that when news stations constantly report such things, they simply become... expected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324744</id>
	<title>I propose we not let Anderson play video games</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1267450500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is pretty obvious to me that Anderson is only doing this study to play video games and get paid for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is pretty obvious to me that Anderson is only doing this study to play video games and get paid for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is pretty obvious to me that Anderson is only doing this study to play video games and get paid for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323940</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1267445880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Find me a reputable study that claimed to conclusively find that porn creates rapists. It was a quite popular idea that pornography should be opposed or even outlawed, because it contributes to misogyny, among many feminists in the 80s, and misogyny is  considered the root of the phenomenon of rape in our culture (contrary to what you might assume, rape doesn't exist in all cultures). I get the feeling, though, that that porn was claimed to have been found to "'conclusively' create rapists" is just something you gathered, rather than actually saw claimed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Find me a reputable study that claimed to conclusively find that porn creates rapists .
It was a quite popular idea that pornography should be opposed or even outlawed , because it contributes to misogyny , among many feminists in the 80s , and misogyny is considered the root of the phenomenon of rape in our culture ( contrary to what you might assume , rape does n't exist in all cultures ) .
I get the feeling , though , that that porn was claimed to have been found to " 'conclusively ' create rapists " is just something you gathered , rather than actually saw claimed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Find me a reputable study that claimed to conclusively find that porn creates rapists.
It was a quite popular idea that pornography should be opposed or even outlawed, because it contributes to misogyny, among many feminists in the 80s, and misogyny is  considered the root of the phenomenon of rape in our culture (contrary to what you might assume, rape doesn't exist in all cultures).
I get the feeling, though, that that porn was claimed to have been found to "'conclusively' create rapists" is just something you gathered, rather than actually saw claimed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322470</id>
	<title>Makes me more violent?</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1267439640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pff, I don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pff , I do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pff, I don't care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323592</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1267444020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is not an area of "mixed results" any more than any other group of studies--there are always outliers.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yes, and the true power of statistics are in determining why outliers exist.  Are the outliers the result of random influence (as in those that didn't commit violent acts just weren't caught), or are they the result of a stronger underlying factor (such as proper parenting)?  To say that "Our statistics are valid.  We have outliers, but no more than any other study" is to mis-understand statistics and completely invalidate your point (at least IMHO)...  Take a look at celestial mechanics.  Based on Newtonian mechanics, we can predict the orbits of celestial bodies very well.  But there are outliers that refuse to be predicted accurately.  Initially, this was thought as "well, there must be some random error in our measurements, we can just ignore it"...  But with the advent of Relativity and it's application to mechanics, we now understand that the original model was flawed precisely because of those outliers.  Until you can step outside of the system (something most humans are not very good at), you can never tell if it's your model that's flawed or your data that's flawed.  And to expect (and pronounce) otherwise is simply proving your foolishness...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not an area of " mixed results " any more than any other group of studies--there are always outliers .
Yes , and the true power of statistics are in determining why outliers exist .
Are the outliers the result of random influence ( as in those that did n't commit violent acts just were n't caught ) , or are they the result of a stronger underlying factor ( such as proper parenting ) ?
To say that " Our statistics are valid .
We have outliers , but no more than any other study " is to mis-understand statistics and completely invalidate your point ( at least IMHO ) ... Take a look at celestial mechanics .
Based on Newtonian mechanics , we can predict the orbits of celestial bodies very well .
But there are outliers that refuse to be predicted accurately .
Initially , this was thought as " well , there must be some random error in our measurements , we can just ignore it " ... But with the advent of Relativity and it 's application to mechanics , we now understand that the original model was flawed precisely because of those outliers .
Until you can step outside of the system ( something most humans are not very good at ) , you can never tell if it 's your model that 's flawed or your data that 's flawed .
And to expect ( and pronounce ) otherwise is simply proving your foolishness.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not an area of "mixed results" any more than any other group of studies--there are always outliers.
Yes, and the true power of statistics are in determining why outliers exist.
Are the outliers the result of random influence (as in those that didn't commit violent acts just weren't caught), or are they the result of a stronger underlying factor (such as proper parenting)?
To say that "Our statistics are valid.
We have outliers, but no more than any other study" is to mis-understand statistics and completely invalidate your point (at least IMHO)...  Take a look at celestial mechanics.
Based on Newtonian mechanics, we can predict the orbits of celestial bodies very well.
But there are outliers that refuse to be predicted accurately.
Initially, this was thought as "well, there must be some random error in our measurements, we can just ignore it"...  But with the advent of Relativity and it's application to mechanics, we now understand that the original model was flawed precisely because of those outliers.
Until you can step outside of the system (something most humans are not very good at), you can never tell if it's your model that's flawed or your data that's flawed.
And to expect (and pronounce) otherwise is simply proving your foolishness...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322984</id>
	<title>Re:As always...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267441500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really depends on the game though.  Everytime I see road kill now I have the urge to pull over and loot the body.<br>"Damn raccoon, I need a new helm!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really depends on the game though .
Everytime I see road kill now I have the urge to pull over and loot the body .
" Damn raccoon , I need a new helm !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really depends on the game though.
Everytime I see road kill now I have the urge to pull over and loot the body.
"Damn raccoon, I need a new helm!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323122</id>
	<title>OH they are conclusive??</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1267441980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why of course they did.  I havent read the article yet, so let me put forth what they have to do to truly be conclusive.
So they:
<p>
1.  Measure ACTUAL criminal activities convictions, as opposed to the bullcrap "aggressive thoughts" or actions that these scientists like to claim are violent instead of merely memories or normal, NECCESSARY assertive thoughts (i.e. they measured violence not merely a mind set that they personally dislike)
</p><p>
2.  They compared it with non-violent video game usage of the same type?  (i.e. they did not figure out that humans are violent)
</p><p>
3.  They compared people that did NOT self-select the violent video games (i.e. they don't confuse cause and effect)
</p><p>Now, let me read the article and find out that:.
These morons did NO research themselves, did NOT attempt to measure actual criminal activitieas, did NOT compare non-violent video games with and did NOT stop self-selection.  All these incompetent fools did was do a study of other studies and found that most of the flawed existing studies confirm their own personal predelictions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why of course they did .
I havent read the article yet , so let me put forth what they have to do to truly be conclusive .
So they : 1 .
Measure ACTUAL criminal activities convictions , as opposed to the bullcrap " aggressive thoughts " or actions that these scientists like to claim are violent instead of merely memories or normal , NECCESSARY assertive thoughts ( i.e .
they measured violence not merely a mind set that they personally dislike ) 2 .
They compared it with non-violent video game usage of the same type ?
( i.e. they did not figure out that humans are violent ) 3 .
They compared people that did NOT self-select the violent video games ( i.e .
they do n't confuse cause and effect ) Now , let me read the article and find out that : .
These morons did NO research themselves , did NOT attempt to measure actual criminal activitieas , did NOT compare non-violent video games with and did NOT stop self-selection .
All these incompetent fools did was do a study of other studies and found that most of the flawed existing studies confirm their own personal predelictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why of course they did.
I havent read the article yet, so let me put forth what they have to do to truly be conclusive.
So they:

1.
Measure ACTUAL criminal activities convictions, as opposed to the bullcrap "aggressive thoughts" or actions that these scientists like to claim are violent instead of merely memories or normal, NECCESSARY assertive thoughts (i.e.
they measured violence not merely a mind set that they personally dislike)

2.
They compared it with non-violent video game usage of the same type?
(i.e. they did not figure out that humans are violent)

3.
They compared people that did NOT self-select the violent video games (i.e.
they don't confuse cause and effect)
Now, let me read the article and find out that:.
These morons did NO research themselves, did NOT attempt to measure actual criminal activitieas, did NOT compare non-violent video games with and did NOT stop self-selection.
All these incompetent fools did was do a study of other studies and found that most of the flawed existing studies confirm their own personal predelictions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756</id>
	<title>the /. community</title>
	<author>theghost</author>
	<datestamp>1267440780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not going to address the study, but i think a lot of the people here on Slashdot should take a look at their own gut reactions to this sort of thing, especially those of you who flame the research before rtfa'ing.</p><p>Slashdot readers are to videogame violence as Fox News viewers are to global warming.</p><p>Mod away - i have karma to burn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not going to address the study , but i think a lot of the people here on Slashdot should take a look at their own gut reactions to this sort of thing , especially those of you who flame the research before rtfa'ing.Slashdot readers are to videogame violence as Fox News viewers are to global warming.Mod away - i have karma to burn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not going to address the study, but i think a lot of the people here on Slashdot should take a look at their own gut reactions to this sort of thing, especially those of you who flame the research before rtfa'ing.Slashdot readers are to videogame violence as Fox News viewers are to global warming.Mod away - i have karma to burn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325620</id>
	<title>Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267457520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, anger leads to hate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , anger leads to hate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, anger leads to hate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31341512</id>
	<title>Re:The D&amp;D effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267647420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't you picture her as a cool Drow drider?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't you picture her as a cool Drow drider ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't you picture her as a cool Drow drider?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323362</id>
	<title>Show me the Article</title>
	<author>Abrisene</author>
	<datestamp>1267443060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't read the actual study, so I can't speak as to it's validity or not, but as someone who conducts research into the interplay between video games and psychology, I find it most concerning that Professor Anderson is advocating policy in order to prevent children from playing violent games. This is the job of the parent. If there is any measure that should be suggested, it should be one to promote better parenting, not censorship.

Again, please note that I have not read his study, but I am concerned with his display of the game "Manhunt," on his poster and his desk. Manhunt is already a controversially violent game, and was was given a Mature (18+) rating in the United States. As a fairly prolific gamer, I can qualitatively state that the majority of games, including most modern first person shooters, do not depict the level of violence and brutality shown in that game. The main point is that if games like Manhunt were used in Professor Anderson's studies, they are not representative of the majority of video games, and therefore his study may exhibit bias.

From the numerous (and often contradictory) studies I have read, I would not be surprised if violent videogames increased aggression, but given the general content of media these days I would tend to think this was more a symptom of greater problems within our society than an issue in-of itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't read the actual study , so I ca n't speak as to it 's validity or not , but as someone who conducts research into the interplay between video games and psychology , I find it most concerning that Professor Anderson is advocating policy in order to prevent children from playing violent games .
This is the job of the parent .
If there is any measure that should be suggested , it should be one to promote better parenting , not censorship .
Again , please note that I have not read his study , but I am concerned with his display of the game " Manhunt , " on his poster and his desk .
Manhunt is already a controversially violent game , and was was given a Mature ( 18 + ) rating in the United States .
As a fairly prolific gamer , I can qualitatively state that the majority of games , including most modern first person shooters , do not depict the level of violence and brutality shown in that game .
The main point is that if games like Manhunt were used in Professor Anderson 's studies , they are not representative of the majority of video games , and therefore his study may exhibit bias .
From the numerous ( and often contradictory ) studies I have read , I would not be surprised if violent videogames increased aggression , but given the general content of media these days I would tend to think this was more a symptom of greater problems within our society than an issue in-of itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't read the actual study, so I can't speak as to it's validity or not, but as someone who conducts research into the interplay between video games and psychology, I find it most concerning that Professor Anderson is advocating policy in order to prevent children from playing violent games.
This is the job of the parent.
If there is any measure that should be suggested, it should be one to promote better parenting, not censorship.
Again, please note that I have not read his study, but I am concerned with his display of the game "Manhunt," on his poster and his desk.
Manhunt is already a controversially violent game, and was was given a Mature (18+) rating in the United States.
As a fairly prolific gamer, I can qualitatively state that the majority of games, including most modern first person shooters, do not depict the level of violence and brutality shown in that game.
The main point is that if games like Manhunt were used in Professor Anderson's studies, they are not representative of the majority of video games, and therefore his study may exhibit bias.
From the numerous (and often contradictory) studies I have read, I would not be surprised if violent videogames increased aggression, but given the general content of media these days I would tend to think this was more a symptom of greater problems within our society than an issue in-of itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31326020</id>
	<title>Re:the /. community</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267460940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do any of these studies address the millions of people who play violent video games regularly?  If video games could make people violent then there would be millions of homicidal maniacs running the streets and nobody would dare venture outside!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do any of these studies address the millions of people who play violent video games regularly ?
If video games could make people violent then there would be millions of homicidal maniacs running the streets and nobody would dare venture outside !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do any of these studies address the millions of people who play violent video games regularly?
If video games could make people violent then there would be millions of homicidal maniacs running the streets and nobody would dare venture outside!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31326800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31328170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31333360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31329952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31329564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31332332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31326020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31372894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31326602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31330238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31333124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31328404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31489320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31329004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31341512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1855252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31489320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31329004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31329952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31326020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31372894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31326104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31332332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31328170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31328404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322752
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324872
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31329564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31333124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31333360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31326800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31330238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31341512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31326602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31327138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1855252.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31322540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31325756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31323842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1855252.31324662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
